ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Independent Living Fund

Hywel Williams: What plans he has for the future of the independent living fund.

Michael Penning: We will consider the Court of Appeal judgment carefully and will announce plans in due course.

Hywel Williams: I declare an interest, in that my brother is enabled to live independently in his own community by the ILF, and I am extremely grateful that that opportunity is afforded to him. Will the Minister assure the House that when the Government come to consider their future plans, there will be full consultation this time with disabled people and disability groups in Wales, the regions of England, and Scotland, and specifically with the Welsh Government?

Michael Penning: I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman, but the conclusions of the Court of Appeal were nothing to do with consultation. It was a process issue, in that the Court felt that the Minister had not been given enough information, based on the information that was put in writing. The Court went on to say that there was evidence that the Minister
	“consulted personally with many affected groups”
	and it had
	“no doubt that evidence of hard cases would have been forcefully drawn to her attention.”
	That is what the Court ruled. It had nothing to do with consultation.

Stephen Pound: The Department for Work and Pensions annual report was due to be published in April this year. When will we finally see it?

Michael Penning: With due respect, the Court ruling did not have an awful lot to do with that so I cannot answer the question. The annual report will come out in due course.

Mr Speaker: The Minister of State has the advantage in this case of being right. It was rather a cheeky inquiry by the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), even by his own standards.

Employment and Support Allowance (Kettering)

Philip Hollobone: How many people in Kettering constituency claim ESA; how many such claimants have had their claim turned down in the last year; and how many are appealing that decision to the first tier tribunal.

Michael Penning: In Kettering 4,400 claims started between October 2008 and February 2013. Of those assessed, 49% were deemed fit for work. Appeals data, I fully accept, are running very slow, especially in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which he has been campaigning hard for. We will be looking to recruit more judges as we go forward.

Philip Hollobone: Benefit appellants in the Kettering constituency are being told that they now have to wait up to 40 weeks for a first-tier tribunal hearing. This is more than twice the national average and is completely unacceptable. Will my hon. Friend speak with his counterpart in the Ministry of Justice and get the situation sorted out?

Michael Penning: My hon. Friend has been campaigning hard on behalf of his constituents and we have been working closely with the Ministry of Justice, which is why I can announce that there were six sessions per month in June 2012 and there are now 18 sessions per month, a 300% increase, and we intend to do better.

Sheila Gilmore: People in Kettering and claimants elsewhere might be able to get a quicker resolution of their cases if the testing of the new descriptors for mental health and fluctuating conditions were brought to an end. It is more than two years since Professor Harrington suggested action. When will we see the results?

Michael Penning: I am sure that in the hon. Lady’s constituency as well as in Kettering, we are working very hard to bring down the time it takes, particularly in the tribunals. We have been working closely on the area of mental health, and we will continue to work to make sure that everybody gets a fair deal from the process.

Full and Part-time Employment

Simon Hughes: What comparative assessment he has made of the number of people in full-time and part-time employment.

Esther McVey: Three in every four people work full-time, and full-time work accounts for all of the significant rise in employment over the last year.

Simon Hughes: The Minister has done exactly what I hoped she would do, which is to deal with the fact that whereas the Leader of the Opposition in 2010 said that
	the Government’s policy would lose a million jobs, my understanding is that since the election there have been more than a million new jobs, and this year more than a quarter of a million new jobs. Will the Minister put it clearly on the record that these new jobs are not all part-time jobs, that there has been a significant growth in full-time employment and that that is predicted to continue?

Esther McVey: My right hon. Friend is correct. It is good news that UK business is creating so many new jobs. Since the 2010 election we have seen a rise of nearly 800,000 in the number of full-time jobs and of more than 300,000 in the number of part-time jobs.

Julie Elliott: With many people in my constituency, particularly women, doing a number of part-time jobs to make up an income, the knock-on consequence is that many of them do not pay national insurance and are therefore not building contributions to their pension. What is the Minister doing about this long-term consequence of too much part-time employment?

Esther McVey: The family will accrue credit if they have family responsibilities. That is a very positive step that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), has taken. We can all welcome the fact that more than a million people are now in work, and more than 210,000 more women are in work this year alone.

Mark Pritchard: Will the Minister join me in congratulating New College Telford, Telford college of arts and technology and Harper Adams university on providing the skills and training throughout Shropshire to ensure that unemployment continues to fall as it has done month on month for the last seven months?

Esther McVey: I will indeed join my hon. Friend in celebrating this positive news. What is happening in his constituency is also happening in every constituency throughout the country. This is positive news that we can all celebrate.

Frank Roy: Has a comparative assessment been made of former Remploy employees who find themselves in part-time or full-time work, and if so, will the Minister publish those findings?

Esther McVey: I and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), will be publishing those findings. We have had significant success with Remploy employees. They have gained jobs at a faster rate than others who have been made redundant, and the work of the local Jobcentre Plus has been exceptional.

Benefit Cap (Employment Outcomes)

Robert Syms: What assessment he has made of the effect of the benefit cap on employment outcomes

Iain Duncan Smith: Recent poll findings show that of those notified or aware that they would be affected by the cap, three in 10 took action to find work. To date, almost 36,000 have accepted help to move into work from Jobcentre Plus and around 18,000 potentially capped claimants have moved into work.

Robert Syms: Jobcentre Plus in Dorset worked extremely hard to identify those affected and to get them into employment. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the impact of that on the recent encouraging employment figures?

Iain Duncan Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I give credit to Jobcentre Plus for the action that it took, which sometimes goes unnoticed, when it knew that this policy was coming in. From April 2012, it wrote to potentially affected people with advance warning. It set up a helpline on the benefit cap and an online calculator so that they could work out some of the figures themselves. It then telephoned some of the most vulnerable, and visited them as well. It set up funding for intensive employment support and worked with local authorities to support claimants in budgeting, housing and child care, and big employment events. This is one of major reasons why about 61% of those who moved into work did so after they were notified.

Julian Brazier: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this, and I assure him that in an area such as mine, which includes the ward with the highest level of child poverty in the south-east region, my constituents welcome the fact that we really are trying to encourage people who have been far too long on benefits to look for options to work. The news that he has just announced is what is needed.

Iain Duncan Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. The reality is that of more than 19,000 householders capped in mid-September 2013, 60% were lone parents and 78% were capped by £100 or less a week. This is a system that is returning fairness to the whole programme. The Opposition opposed the cap, and it is worth remembering that even though the trade union leaders opposed it, 80% of Unite members support our policy on welfare reform, as I discovered from a poll the other day.

Youth Contract Wage Incentives

Steve Reed: What progress he has made on delivering his target of 160,000 Youth Contract wage incentives by April 2015; and if he will make a statement.

Barbara Keeley: What progress he has made on delivering his target of 160,000 Youth Contract wage incentives by April 2015; and if he will make a statement.

Esther McVey: There were more than 21,000 wage incentive job starts up to May 2013. The next wage incentive statistics are due to be released early in the new year.

Steve Reed: As the Secretary of State is well aware, in the first 14 months of this programme his Department delivered less than 3% of what he promised. Together with the appalling underperformance of the Work programme, and with Ministers and civil servants at each other’s throats over the chaotic introduction of universal credit, is this not yet another example of how this Secretary of State promises much but delivers little?

Esther McVey: I am quite sure that what the hon. Gentleman was reading out was a piece of fiction and I would like to give him the correct figures. The Youth Contract is made up of many component parts. One is wage incentives, and there is a wage incentive for apprenticeships, and another is for work experience. Of the 113,000 people who went on work experience, 50% have a job, and 21,000 have wage incentives, and that figure is rising by 4,000 a month. Youth unemployment has fallen for 17 consecutive months. In the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, it has fallen 35% in the last year. Perhaps he wants to congratulate us on that.

Barbara Keeley: I do not congratulate the Government on the level of youth unemployment in my constituency; there are 900 unemployed young people in my constituency and almost 1 million nationally. The system of wage incentives is clearly not working, because the numbers are appallingly low for constituencies such as mine. Is not it time that Ministers stopped being in denial and started doing something radical to help young people back to work?

Esther McVey: I would just like to mention Labour’s record: a 40% increase in youth unemployment. What we have done, as I have said, has seen youth unemployment fall for 17 consecutive months. It is now lower than it was at the general election.

Andrew Bridgen: Will my hon. Friend confirm that since the Youth Contract was launched in April 2012 youth unemployment has fallen by more than 59,000 and that the number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance has been dropping for 17 consecutive months?

Esther McVey: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Just so that we can hear it again, even though I have said it twice and he has said it once, youth unemployment has fallen for 17 consecutive months.

Charlie Elphicke: Will the Minister tell the House how the Youth Contract performs in terms of value for money and effectiveness compared with the future jobs fund?

Esther McVey: The future jobs fund cost £6,500 per outcome, whereas our work experience outcomes cost £325, which is a 20th of the price for exactly the same outcomes. As always, the coalition Government are delivering value for money.

Stephen Timms: After more than two years of the Work programme and 18 months of the embarrassing flop of Youth Contract wage incentives, youth unemployment is still nearly 1 million, higher than it was at the general election and higher than when the Work programme began. That is terrible not only
	for young people, but for the future of the economy. When will Ministers finally get serious about that and back a proper youth jobs guarantee?

Esther McVey: Obviously the Opposition like to rewrite history. The 40% increase in youth unemployment that we saw over their years in office was shocking, particularly given that it was during a boom period. We are dealing with the issue most practically. The Youth Contract has been, is and will be a huge success, with wage contracts increasing from a slow start of 1,000 a month to 4,000-plus a month.

Pension Charges

David Mowat: What costs will be included in his proposed cap on pension charges.

Steve Webb: As my hon. Friend knows, we are consulting on whether there should be cap on charges in workplace pensions and, if so, what costs it should cover. Without pre-empting the consultation, he can be assured that our presumption would be in favour of a broad definition of charges for those purposes.

David Mowat: I thank the pensions Minister for that answer and congratulate him on his consultation on introducing a cap that is 50% of the level of the cap for stakeholder pensions introduced when the Opposition were in government. That is a step forward. A further step forward across the whole industry would be to have better comparability and transparency of charges generally. We have acted to do that for energy companies by simplifying charge structures. Will we consider doing that for pensions?

Steve Webb: I thank my hon. Friend for being the only Member who managed to get a pensions question on today’s Order Paper. [Interruption.] I will make the most of it. He is quite right that the Office of Fair Trading identified 18 different sorts of charges, which are often baffling and hidden. One of its recommendations was that the committees that oversee pensions should be given transparent information about charges, and that is a recommendation we will be looking to take forward.

Andrew Miller: Over the last generation the net size of employment units has shrunk as a function of technology and changes in society. That has meant smaller pension schemes that in net terms require a greater management effort to run them. What will the Minister do to try to bring together some of the smaller schemes to get better value for money overall?

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. In fact, consolidation is happening; the number of medium-sized schemes has declined quite significantly in the past few years. The quality standards that we will be putting in place will mean that running a small, substandard, sub-scale scheme will not be an option, so we anticipate that there will be much more consolidation. Together with the National Employment Savings Trust,
	the Government’s own scheme which already has over 500,000 members, we are moving towards better value for money.

Gregg McClymont: Tonight on Channel 4, the Minister will accuse big pension companies of making excess profits at the expense of those who have worked hard and saved all their lives. “Dispatches” will claim that many savers are losing up to £10,000 per year every year in their retirement as the companies make excess profits, yet the Pensions Bill that the Minister has just taken through the Commons does precisely nothing to tackle rip-offs in annuities. When will he get a grip on the annuities market and end these rip-offs?

Steve Webb: I make no apology for defending consumers against an abuse that has gone on for far too long, with people buying annuities where they will get their money back only if they live until they are 90 or beyond. The Financial Conduct Authority, which was created only about six months ago, has already reported on annuities and will bring forward further proposals. We are working with our colleagues at the Treasury who lead on these matters to make sure that this issue, which has gone long unaddressed by successive Governments, is finally tackled.

Universal Credit (Lone Parents)

William Bain: What assessment he has made of the effect of universal credit on work incentives for lone parents.

Steve Webb: Universal credit fundamentally simplifies support for working lone parents and our analysis shows that UC will create positive work incentives for lone parents.

William Bain: But does the Minister not accept that research for Gingerbread shows that two in every five lone parents will lose out in cash terms under universal credit, with lone parents in work fighting an uphill battle to make work pay beyond 20 hours a week? Are not this Government not only botching the introduction of universal credit but breaching the Secretary of State’s pledge that UC would make sure that work paid for each and every hour that people work?

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to the Gingerbread report, which I have here. It says:
	“Universal credit increases the financial pay off from working of single parents”.

David Nuttall: Does the Minister agree that regardless of any particular problems that might be thrown up by the introduction of universal credit, one of the biggest problems with the welfare system is that it is far too complex, which leads to all sorts of mistakes being made, and that regardless of the teething problems we must press ahead with universal credit?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is quite right. At the moment, people have to go to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for their tax credits, to the local authority
	for their housing benefit, and to the Department for Work and Pensions for their jobseeker’s allowance. Having all this in a single system will improve take-up, and that is one of the things that the Gingerbread report did not factor in.

Eilidh Whiteford: The Gingerbread report does, though, warn that working single parents are likely to lose a higher proportion of their income than other household types. Why does the Minister think that the children of lone parents should lose out?

Steve Webb: As I say, the report makes some assumptions that it accepts are not true. One of its assumptions is that there is no impact on take-up; it assumes 100% take-up before and after. We know that that is not true—that take-up is partial—and rolling all three benefits into one will improve take-up for the benefit of the children of lone parents.

Graham Evans: The introduction of new IT systems can be challenging for business as well as for Government Departments. What lessons have been learned from the mistakes of others as regards the introduction of the new universal credit and its new IT system?

Steve Webb: As my hon. Friend knows, the litany of failed IT systems under the Labour Government would fill the remainder of this Question Time. One of the key things that is often forgotten is that every day this Department pays pensions and benefits seamlessly to millions of people. All the IT projects that are developed without delay and without hiccup never make it on to the front page of the newspapers.

Seema Malhotra: Free school meals offer vital support to many lone parents in my constituency. When does the Minister plan to set out the eligibility criteria for free school meals under universal credit?

Steve Webb: The broad intent is to mirror, as far as possible, the current rules. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for stressing the importance of free school meals. She will therefore welcome the coalition’s decision to extend access to free school meals to all infant school children.

Work Programme

Chris Ruane: When he estimates the Work programme will provide the same number of job outcomes as the flexible new deal.

Esther McVey: The flexible new deal ran for two years from October 2009 to the end of September 2011, by which time 50,000 people achieved a six-month job outcome. By August 2012, after only one year and two months, 47,000 people achieved a six-month job outcome through the Work programme. Only one month later —in September 2012, after one year and three months—63,000 people were in a job. Simply put, the Work programme is outperforming the flexible new deal.

Chris Ruane: It is not so much a work programme, as a Government do not work programme. Whatever the Minister says, the figures she commissioned from a private company state that the flexible new deal created more jobs over a limited period than the Work programme.

Esther McVey: I think I set out plainly how many jobs the flexible jobs did not create. To date, 117,000 people have achieved six-month outcomes through the Work programme, so it is working. I am pleased to note that in the Vale of Clwyd the level of jobseekers is at 3.6%, the lowest it has been since November 2008. We must be getting something right.

Kate Green: The Work programme is failing disabled people badly, with only 5.8% getting into work—worse than if there was no programme at all. Meanwhile, specialist disability charities are complaining that they are getting only a handful of referrals. The employment and support allowance is costing the public purse £1.4 billion per year. When will the Minister get a grip on this failing programme, so that disabled people can receive the expert support they need to get them into work?

Esther McVey: I have just had a successful meeting with the Shaw Trust. Its latest report calls for the Work programme to be refined, not redone. The Work programme is working, but we need to make it better. The Opposition left 1.4 million people without support or help, and those people are being helped for the first time. Although it is tough, we have got significant numbers into work.

Mesothelioma

Stephen Hepburn: What recent representations he has received on compensation for people with mesothelioma.

Michael Penning: In the short time I have been the Minister of State with responsibility for this matter, I have had the pleasure of meeting the all-party group and victim support group representatives to discuss the Mesothelioma Bill currently before Parliament.

Stephen Hepburn: I thank the Minister for bringing forward this much-needed Bill. Does he agree that thousands of working-class people have been killed through being negligently exposed to asbestos in the workplace and that their families have been denied financial security, while the insurance industry has got off with almost £1 billion in unpaid compensation payments? I urge him to reject the proposals from the House of Lords for the insurance industry to be responsible for 75% of compensations payments only, and to make them pay the full 100%. Let the vultures in the insurance industry pay.

Michael Penning: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on campaigning on behalf of his constituents and others. People have been suffering from this abhorrent disease for many years. The issue was discussed extensively in the House of Lords and will be discussed extensively in this place. Our discussions will not be quite as extensive, so that we can pass the Bill and the people who need it may receive compensation. Governments—I stress Governments—have turned their back on these people. We are not going to do that.

Universal Credit

Emily Thornberry: When he expects all new claimants to be on universal credit across the UK.

Nick Smith: When he expects all new claimants to be on universal credit across the UK.

Iain Duncan Smith: Within the time scales set out, our priority is to deliver universal credit safely and securely, and we will set out our plans in more detail in a couple of weeks.

Emily Thornberry: Why did the Secretary of State tell the House last month that his plans for universal credit were on track?

Iain Duncan Smith: As I said in my earlier answer, I ordered a reset so that we do not have difficulties when we start to roll out the scheme. We have rolled out the pathfinder already. It is important to note that there have been at least six sites from October, and there will be many more around the country when we expand that. As I said, I will make clear to the House the plan and programme for the full roll-out, all the way through to complete delivery, in detail in the next couple of weeks.

Nick Smith: The Public Accounts Committee found that leadership of the universal credit programme was hapless. Will the Secretary of State tell us who is responsible for that blunder?

Iain Duncan Smith: I already take full responsibility for everything that goes on in my Department. I have to say that I take responsibility for making sure that universal credit as originally planned was stopped and reset. Before anybody was affected, we made absolutely sure that when we roll it out, as we have begun and will continue to do, it will deliver maximum benefits of more than £38 billion to the public.
	I take no lessons from the Opposition, who spent years rolling out programmes regardless of how they affected people—a disaster on IT for tax credits and a disaster on the health service. A little bit of humble pie on their part might not be a bad thing.

Anne Begg: The pathfinder mentioned by the Secretary of State was meant to include 10 separate Jobcentre Plus areas by October this year, but only one has come on line, in addition to those already in place, so there has been a further slowing down of the roll-out of universal credit. Indeed, the ones assessed have been the very simplest cases. When will the Department deliver on its original timetable, far less on any speeded-up timetable?

Iain Duncan Smith: As I said to the hon. Lady when I appeared in front of her Committee in July, we have been very clear that we would roll out universal credit on the plan and programme already set out. The pathfinders are on track. Those before Christmas and those after Christmas are on track—[Interruption.] Yes they are. It
	is not just the pathfinder centres; we already have a huge amount of change. We are putting 6,000 new computers into jobcentres to be ready for universal credit, and we are training 25,000 jobcentre staff to ensure that they are ready for its delivery. We are on track to make sure that universal credit—the bit that follows next—can use those pathfinders to deliver a universal credit programme that works, unlike so many of the programmes that the previous Government used.

Chris Bryant: Dear, dear, dear. [Interruption.] No, the report does not say that; I can tell you what it does say. It says that, precisely in the Government’s timetable, from October 2013
	“All new claims for out-of-work support are treated as claims to Universal Credit.”
	That has not happened, has it? The Secretary of State is not on time, he is not on budget, and it looks as if he is going to lose £140 million. The first step to recovery is owning up that you are sick. You are not on time, you are not on budget—are you?

Mr Speaker: I am always on time. Let us hear from the Secretary of State.

Iain Duncan Smith: Mr Speaker, you are not only on time, but you are always on budget.
	That was a lot of sound and fury from the hon. Gentleman, signifying absolutely nothing. The reality is, as I have said quite categorically and publicly, the report could be written because of the actions I took over a year ago to ensure that universal credit will roll out and deliver exactly as we said it would. The hon. Gentleman served for I do not know how many years in a Government who allowed all these other programmes to fail, but not one person will be adversely affected by the change we have made. Universal credit will deliver maximum benefits to the British public, and the Opposition will remain out of government, because they have not a single clue.

Benefit Payments (Post Office)

Alan Reid: What plans he has to introduce the payment of pensions and benefits and begin accepting applications for universal credit through the Post Office.

Steve Webb: I assure my hon. Friend that all Department for Work and Pensions benefits and entitlements, including universal credit, are normally paid by direct payment into a mainstream bank account, the vast majority of which can now be accessed over the counter at post office branches.

Alan Reid: Millions of people have chosen to collect their pensions and benefits at a post office through a Post Office card account, but the contract is due to expire in 16 months’ time. Will the Government end the uncertainty and announce that POCA will continue after April 2015 with, I hope, improved banking facilities?

Steve Webb: We are in active discussions with Post Office Ltd and our colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Indeed, I am meeting ministerial colleagues later this afternoon to discuss that issue. I can assure my hon. Friend that I share his commitment to the post office network.

Anne McGuire: How long does the Minister anticipate that post offices will have to wait before they are in a position to take applications for universal credit?

Steve Webb: Just to be clear, people can receive universal credit into an account accessible at a post office already. Universal credit obviously has an online application process, so if there is access to the internet at local post offices, that can be done already.

Youth Employment

Stephen McPartland: What steps he is taking to create more employment opportunities for young people.

Esther McVey: The Government are not only creating job opportunities. In the last quarter, youth employment was up by 50,000. That shows that our approach is working. We are providing young people with the support that is needed, including work experience and apprenticeships.

Stephen McPartland: North Hertfordshire college in Stevenage has developed a range of learning companies in which students work while they gain their qualifications. We have seen an increase in the number of job offers for students who are learning in that way. Does the Minister agree that learning companies offer opportunities for young people, in partnership with local employers?

Esther McVey: I do agree with my hon. Friend. If people come together to create opportunities that turn into jobs, that is welcomed by the Department. We are leading the way and have put down a strategy that enables people to work in partnership.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Minister recognise that her response to that question sounded a bit complacent? Will she consider how we can build a better relationship among employers and further education colleges, schools and universities? Is it not time that she spoke to her colleagues in the Department for Education and brought a careers service back into our schools?

Esther McVey: If I gave the impression of being complacent, I am sorry, but I am certainly not. I know the size of the job that the Government have to do to help all the youth out there. We are doing that job and will continue to do it as best we can. We do talk to other Departments. There is a duty on head teachers to provide careers guidance in their schools. We have a National Careers Service at Jobcentre Plus. We can work with schools to ensure that children have the best careers advice.

Rehman Chishti: In my constituency, youth unemployment has fallen to its lowest level since before the last election. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the excellent partnership in my constituency between MidKent college and ActivKids, which improves the job prospects of young people?

Esther McVey: I join my hon. Friend in celebrating that success. I know that it is something in which he takes much interest and that he has helped greatly. I hope to hear many more stories like that from across the UK.

Jobseekers (Support)

Paul Maynard: What steps he is taking to offer more intensive support for new jobseekers.

Esther McVey: Conditionality measures were announced in the spending review to increase the support for jobseeker’s allowance claimants. Claimants will be asked to write a CV and register with universal jobmatch. Longer initial interviews, weekly signing and quarterly reviews with our advisers will provide more intensive support for claimants.

Paul Maynard: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will she reassure me that that conditionality will involve remedying deficiencies in what is often called work readiness, as well as focusing on the overall number of jobs for which a claimant applies each week?

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is quite right that work readiness skills are key and that it is not only the number of jobs for which somebody applies that matters. Through the claimant conditionality and the longer intensive interview when a claim is made, the people at Jobcentre Plus will find out what skills the claimant needs and support them.

Andrew Gwynne: The Minister will know that Deloitte is selling its interest in the Work programme. Why does she think investors are pulling out of the scheme?

Esther McVey: Investors are not pulling of the scheme. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that Deloitte is not working with Ingeus any more. Ingeus is one of the top performing Work programme primes. We expected to see movement in the industry. Deloitte came in and supported Ingeus as best it could, and now it is exiting, as happens when any businesses come together. As I said, the Work programme is working. The figures are going up, which is something that the Labour party could not achieve.

Duncan Hames: Not only is the number of jobseekers falling, but the number of economically inactive people of working age has fallen by more than 400,000 under this Government to a level that has not been seen for more than two decades. Does the Minister agree that when people are returning to the labour market after a long period outside it, new jobseekers need support to prevent them from becoming long-term unemployed themselves?

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us look again at Labour’s record. It left 5 million people unemployed and claiming. We have taken the number of people who are claiming the three main benefits down by more than 500,000 since coming to
	power. Instead of criticising what we are doing, all Members should take pride in the fact that 1 million more people have jobs.

Employment and Support Allowance

Chi Onwurah: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Work programme for people already claiming employment and support allowance.

Esther McVey: Work programme provider performance is helping people on ESA move towards work, and to continue that improvement we are setting up a best practice group to help other primes share best practice.

Chi Onwurah: Last Wednesday, I spoke at a conference entitled, “Newcastle: a good city in tough times”, where faith, volunteer groups, charities and business all emphasised the importance of volunteering and the voluntary sector in helping claimants into work, yet the Department for Work and Pensions is making it harder to volunteer, through sanctioning, and squeezing the voluntary sector out of Work programme contracts. That is one reason that Newcastle’s success rate for ESA claimants is only 2%. What is the Department doing to encourage volunteers and the voluntary sector to help build the community skills we need to get people back into work?

Esther McVey: Of course, we fully support people doing voluntary work, so long as they can commit to their job signing and the work they have to do to get a full-time job. We see voluntary work as an important step to getting a job, and nearly 50% of Work programme providers are from the voluntary sector. Also, I am sure the hon. Lady will join us in celebrating the fact that the claimant count in her constituency has fallen by 13% in the past year.

Robert Halfon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Work programme and other measures have seen the number of people unemployed in Harlow fall by 100 over the past year and that other Government measures have seen the number of apprenticeships increase by 86%? Does this not show that the Government are helping working people?

Esther McVey: Absolutely. Not only are we helping people through the Work programme, wage incentives and record numbers of apprenticeships—half a million in the last year—but the Government are doing everything to support people, young and old, back into the workplace.

Working-age Benefits

Jeremy Lefroy: How many people in (a) Stafford and (b) England were receiving the major working-age benefits in April (i) 2010 and (ii) 2013.

Esther McVey: In May 2013, the number of people claiming working-age benefits in England was down to 4,645,040 from 4,807,940 in 2010—a fall of 162,900. In Stafford, the number was down to 8,070 from 8,690 in 2010—a fall of 620.

Jeremy Lefroy: The figures suggest that the number of people on major out-of-work benefits has fallen substantially since May 2010. In addition to the great benefit to former claimants of being back in work, will the Minister estimate the saving to the taxpayer?

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is right. The figures suggest that out-of-work welfare dependency has been reduced by nearly 10%, which of course is very encouraging. Furthermore, in the past 12 months, the change in the number of JSA claimants has saved £1 billion.

Care Leavers

Fiona Bruce: What recent steps his Department has taken to support care leavers.

Iain Duncan Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend’s work on the all-party group on financial education for young people. Last month, we launched the cross-departmental care leavers strategy, brokered through the Cabinet Committee on Social Justice, to ensure that for the first time pooled resources from education, employment, health, housing and justice will be tailored to the challenge facing a group of young people for too long left to struggle alone.

Fiona Bruce: Does the Secretary of State agree that equipping young people in general and care leavers in particular to manage their own finances well is a vital tool? What are the Government doing to address this matter, as recommended by the report of the all-party group on financial education for young people?

Iain Duncan Smith: Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend, because we will definitely be considering this next recommendation of hers. I have listened and read her suggestions, and we have actually managed to alter the new curriculum. The final version will now state that
	“the functions and uses of money, the importance and practice of budgeting, and managing risk…income and expenditure, credit and debt, insurance, savings and pensions, financial products and services”
	will be taught as part of the curriculum for the first time.

Medical Services Reports

Kevin Brennan: What steps he is taking to improve the quality of medical services reports on claimants of benefits.

Michael Penning: This Government take the quality of assessments very seriously. That is why, before I became the Minister, when the Government saw a drop in the quality of work capability assessments, Atos was instructed to implement an improvement plan to ensure that assessment reports meet the high standards that the Department needs. That plan is now complete.

Kevin Brennan: My constituent Mr Robert Shafer suffered an injustice as a result of a rogue medical services report from many years ago. Will the Minister
	undertake to take further steps to improve the quality of medical services reports, and arrange a reply to my latest letter to the Secretary of State, to which a response is overdue, on behalf of my constituent?

Michael Penning: On the latter point, not only will I ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives the letter he requires, but if he wants to meet me, I will be more than happy to do that. The Department has commissioned four independent reviews. We know we need to get there; we know we need to do more. We have made changes to help cancer patients and are carrying out an evidence-based review of criteria, which is being overseen by Professor Harrington. I expect to see that report quite soon.

Alex Cunningham: My constituent Matthew Moore, who has a severe mental health condition, was told that he no longer qualified for employment and support allowance. He appealed and months later saw the decision in his case overturned in a few minutes. The tribunal chair said that he was shocked that ESA had been withdrawn in the first place and had no hesitation in awarding 30 points. Is that not yet another example of the incompetence of the many people paid to carry out assessments of some of our most vulnerable people, and of why the Government need to get their act together, have some compassion and ensure that such people are treated fairly?

Michael Penning: Individual cases are understandably quite emotional for individual MPs and their constituents. If the decision in that case was overturned, we will look carefully at what the tribunal said. We need to do that to ensure we get it right. However, this process was started by the previous Administration—it is nothing new for this Government—but we will get it right where, I am afraid, they got it wrong.

Topical Questions

Andrew Bridgen: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Iain Duncan Smith: Today I welcome the latest labour market statistics. We have seen the largest annual drop in the claimant count for 15 years. Almost every area in Britain has seen the number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance fall over the last year, contributing to a total fall in worklessness of more than 500,000 since 2010, while there are now more than 1 million more in work. All this is a testament, I believe, to this Government’s success in getting Britain working again.

Andrew Bridgen: Few would disagree that careers advice in schools needs improvement. Given that unemployment is now down to 2.6% in my constituency, does my right hon. Friend agree that Jobcentre Plus is well placed—it has the resources and the local knowledge —to deliver part of that improvement, preferably in conjunction with local employers?

Iain Duncan Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend and his area on having an unemployment rate of 2.6%, which is testimony to the efforts this Government are making. Schools obviously have a legal duty to secure
	independent careers guidance for their pupils, and employers have to work with them, but it is also a fact that Jobcentre Plus has a careers guidance programme. We are now in talks with the schools to ensure that somehow we can connect would-be school leavers, long before they leave school, with companies and businesses, to tell them exactly what they need to have and what skills they will need to obtain.

Rachel Reeves: This weekend it was reported that Atos had pulled out of a DWP contract providing specialist disability advice. What was the Department’s response? An internal memo instructing staff deciding whether people are disabled enough to receive disability living allowance to “google it”. Is this not the biggest indication yet of the sheer contempt in which the Department for Work and Pensions holds disabled people?

Iain Duncan Smith: The hon. Lady is completely wrong. First of all, it was not an internal memo; it was guidance that goes out to the Department in the normal way. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) needs to keep quiet for a while and listen a bit more. This man has travelled so far in his political career that we never know what he is talking about. He has gone from being a Tory to being a Blairite and then a Brownite, and now he is a socialist on his website, so I wonder whether he needs to keep quiet and listen a little more.
	The answer to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) is that Atos Healthcare has not withdrawn from the contract. Normal procedures to update guidance in the process of DLA reform are going through. Under DLA, only 6% had face-to-face assessments; the majority have face-to-face assessments now, under the personal independence payment. Therefore, decision makers have much more objective information than they ever had before, so there is no change to the quality of the service. This is a simple contract adjustment to reflect and meet the corresponding business needs. The hon. Lady should really not listen to jobbing journalists who come to her to tell her they have an issue.

Rachel Reeves: I am not sure whether the Secretary of State has even bothered to read the memo from his own Department. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, because of the failure of his Department to deliver the reform, the personal independence payment is going out only to a third of country. After the chaos of the universal credit, the work capability assessment, the PIP, the Work programme and the Youth Contract, DLA is now in chaos as well. Is there any part of the Department for Work and Pensions that is actually working?

Iain Duncan Smith: The thing that is wonderful about the hon. Lady is that she never listens; she just reads what is on her script that she prepared before, and it does not matter what question was answered. I have already told her—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda should keep quiet; otherwise he will jump out of his underpants if he carries on like that—

Mr Speaker: Order. These occasions are becoming deeply disorderly. A question has been put, and the Secretary of State is answering it. The House must hear the answer with all due courtesy and orderliness.

Iain Duncan Smith: The first answer is that the hon. Member for Rhondda should keep quiet for longer. The real answer to the question on PIP is that the hon. Lady is completely wrong. As with every other programme, we are controlling the roll-out to ensure that it meets all our needs. There is nothing for the hon. Lady to concern herself about. This is working and it will work all the way through next year, exactly as planned. The truth is that the hon. Lady raises these questions because she does not want to come back to last week’s failed Opposition day debate, when her argument was so powerful that 47 Labour Members—including the shadow Chancellor, who I gather is a “nightmare”—decided to abstain.

Alan Reid: Will the Government use the Post Office to allow people without internet access to submit applications for universal credit and to give help with the application? Post offices are in the heart of communities, and for many of my constituents, this would avoid a long journey to the nearest jobcentre.

Iain Duncan Smith: May I say to my hon. Friend that that is exactly what we want to do? We want to make sure that those claiming universal credit can claim it in a number of different places—for example, we are setting up the facility to claim in libraries, in local government offices and also in jobcentres. We will work and are working with post offices to ensure that if people need to make claims from them, particularly in very rural constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s, that facility will be made available as well.

Kerry McCarthy: Last month, the Secretary of State tried to tell me that lots of people were using food banks simply because they were available and it made sense to do so—adding insult to injury for the many thousands of people who are being forced to use food banks and have been referred to them by agencies because they are recognised as being in desperate need. Has the Secretary of State seen the research commissioned by DEFRA into the rise of emergency food aid? Why has this been shelved? Is it because it reveals that the Government are at fault for people not being able to feed themselves and their families?

Iain Duncan Smith: We have not shelved anything, and I have to tell the hon. Lady that she needs a few facts to be put on the table. First, during a time of growth under the Labour Government—[Interruption.] Labour Members really hate to be reminded that they were in government once and that the reason why they are no longer in government is that their incompetence was so phenomenal that even at a time of growth, people ended up claiming food parcels. If we look back, we see that under the last Government the number claiming rose by 10 times. More importantly, let me inform the House of an international comparison. In the UK at the moment, some 60,000 or so are food bank users. In Germany, which has a much higher level of welfare payment, 6 million people use food banks—one in 12, which is many more, and it is the same in Canada. The hon. Lady should not always read everything she reads, particularly when it is her lot that write it.

Jesse Norman: A recent report by the Office of Fair Trading identified no fewer than 18 different
	points at which charges can be levied on a pension. Does the Minister share my view that there should be radical simplification and disclosure on pension fees and charges—however and wherever they are levied?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is right to raise this important issue. Over the last few years, we have taken expanded powers to cap charges and to require disclosure along the lines he describes. We will shortly act on our charges consultation and will publish quality standards, which will include requirements to disclose relevant information, including charges.

Graham Jones: Eleven parishes in Oswaldtwistle have come together to open Hyndburn’s four food banks, which often serve people who are in employment. Is the Secretary of State not concerned about these levels of poverty, particularly in constituencies such as mine?

Iain Duncan Smith: I am. That is why we are doing all that we can to reduce the levels of poverty, and are succeeding. Child poverty, for example, has fallen by more than 300,000 under this Government. [Interruption.] I accept that the hon. Gentleman may well find that there are issues and problems in his constituency, and I am ready and willing to discuss them with him at any stage. The fact is, however, that child poverty rose under the last Government. They spent more than £170 billion on tax credits in an attempt to end the situation, and one of the hon. Gentleman’s own colleagues has said that they would no longer be able to afford them. They were more than 10 times more expensive than anything that they replaced.

John Randall: We have heard about the excessive amounts being charged on pensions and annuities. Does my hon. Friend the pensions Minister agree that it is important for us to re-establish a real savings culture, and will he tell us what else he can do?

Steve Webb: I do agree with my right hon. Friend. We are establishing an economy that is based on savings rather than debt, and one of the most important measures that we are implementing is automatic enrolment in workplace pensions. By Christmas, about 2 million workers will have been enrolled. Nine out of 10 people are choosing to stay in workplace pensions, and it is encouraging to note that—notwithstanding what sceptics have said—young people are particularly likely to do so, thus establishing a culture of saving from an early age.

Diana Johnson: Since January, the coalition has no longer been producing the statistics showing the number of people chasing every job vacancy in each constituency. Will the Secretary of State bring those statistics back, so that we can have information about what is happening in our own constituencies?

Iain Duncan Smith: I shall consider the hon. Lady’s request, and get back to her.

Tessa Munt: Does the Secretary of State agree that a non-resident parent who has no declared income, but chooses not to claim benefits and is living
	on a loan, should be required by the Child Support Agency to contribute the flat rate of £5 rather than being party to a “nil” arrangement and not having to pay anything? Should not such people contribute to the considerable costs of raising their child or children?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that when we bring all new claims into the 2012 child maintenance system, we will use information from HMRC relating not just to earned income, but to income from all sources. Provided that income is coming into the household and HMRC is aware of it, we shall be able to use that information in assessments.

Julie Hilling: Can the Minister tell us how many people have died as a result of illness or suicide between their being declared fit for work and the hearing of their appeals? If he does not know, does he not think that he has a duty to collect those figures?

Michael Penning: I think that we should be very careful about scaremongering. There will be people to whom that applies, but such figures are not collected centrally. I know the hon. Lady very well, and I do not think that the House expects scaremongering of that kind from her.

Philip Davies: I congratulate the Secretary of State on introducing a benefit cap. The feedback that I receive from my constituents suggests that they thoroughly support the principle of the cap, but feel that its level is too high. Will the Secretary of State encourage them by announcing that he will consider lowering the level, perhaps to a figure beginning with 1?

Iain Duncan Smith: I shall take my hon. Friend’s plaudits and congratulations in the spirit in which they were meant. The benefit cap is intended to be fair to those who pay tax to support people who are out of work by ensuring that people cannot earn more through being out of work than they can through being in work. Of course we keep the whole issue under review, but the cap is working very well at its present level.
	How interesting it is that not one Opposition Member wants to talk about issues such as getting people back to work and being fair to the taxpayer. The only policy that the Opposition have come up with so far is reversal of the spare room subsidy. That is a pathetic indictment of the lack of welfare policies in the “welfare party”.

Debbie Abrahams: I welcome today’s figures showing a reduction in unemployment, but what are the implications for the targets relating to inappropriate sanctions on jobseeker’s allowance claimants? This is a real issue, and it needs to be addressed. It is distorting the JSA figures.

Esther McVey: I can give a very short answer: there are no such targets.

Craig Whittaker: With regard to discretionary housing payment, under a recent FOI it has been established that Calderdale’s budget is almost £384,000 and under the same FOI we learned that in the first six months of the spare room subsidy Labour-run
	Calderdale has struggled to spend around £24,000. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this massive differential between budget and actual spend could indicate that the spare room subsidy in Calderdale is not an issue, or does he think Labour-run Calderdale is not doing enough to help the most vulnerable?

Iain Duncan Smith: We will, of course, be releasing figures on this later, but what I say to councils up and down the country is, “That is what the money is there for—to help alleviate issues and problems, at their discretion.” I remind my hon. Friend that last year, after having complained that they did not have enough money, they returned £10 million to the Exchequer, so my urging to them is, “Either do what you’re meant to do or stop complaining.”

Bill Esterson: What advice does the Secretary of State have for the 4,963 people in Sefton chasing the 10 available one-bedroom properties? Where does he expect them to go, especially given that many of them are disabled and are unable to pay the bedroom tax?

Iain Duncan Smith: As my hon. Friends made clear in the debate last week, there is actually an awful lot of available property in HomeSwap, with over 300,000 available in the last week alone. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman, and, through him to the councils, local authorities and housing associations, that the purpose of this programme is to get them to manage their housing better, and not to be building bigger houses when they need one-bedroom properties, and to start managing better for the people who need their property.

Commonwealth Meeting and the Philippines

David Cameron: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the disaster in the Philippines and the Commonwealth meeting in Sri Lanka.
	Ten days ago a category 5 super-typhoon brought massive destruction across the Philippines, where the city of Tacloban was devastated by a tidal wave almost 2.5 metres high. The scale of what happened is still becoming clear, with many of the country’s 7,000 islands not yet reached or assessed, but already we know that more than 12 million people have been affected, with over 4,400 dead and more than 1,500 missing, including a number of Britons. This disaster follows other deadly storms there and an earthquake that killed 200 people in Bohol last month. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House will be with all those affected, their friends and families.
	Britain has been at the forefront of the international relief effort. The British public have once again shown incredible generosity and compassion, donating £35 million so far, and the Government have contributed more than £50 million to the humanitarian response. In the last week HMS Daring and her onboard helicopter, an RAF C-17 and eight different relief flights have brought essential supplies from the UK and helped get aid to those who need it most. An RAF C-130—a Hercules—will arrive tomorrow and HMS Illustrious will also be there by the end of this week, equipped with seven helicopters, and water desalination and command and control capabilities.
	Beyond the immediate task of life-saving aid, the people of the Philippines will face a long task of rebuilding and reducing their vulnerability to these kinds of events. Britain will continue to support them every step of the way.
	Let me turn to the Commonwealth, and then to the issues in Sri Lanka itself. The Commonwealth is a unique organisation representing 53 countries, a third of the world’s population and a fifth of the global economy. It is united by history, by relationships and by the values of the new Commonwealth charter which we agreed two years ago in Perth. Britain is a leading member. Her Majesty the Queen is the head of the Commonwealth and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales did our country proud acting on her behalf and attending last week.
	As with all the international organisations to which we belong, the Commonwealth allows us to champion the values and economic growth that are so vital to our national interest. At this summit we reached important conclusions on poverty, human rights and trade.
	On poverty, this was the last Commonwealth meeting before the millennium development goals expire. We wanted our Commonwealth partners to unite behind the ambitious programme set by the UN high-level panel which I co-chaired with the Presidents of Indonesia and Liberia. For the first time this programme prioritises not just aid, but the vital place of anti-corruption efforts, open institutions, access to justice, the rule of law and good governance in tackling poverty.
	On human rights, the Commonwealth reiterated its support for the core values set out in the Commonwealth charter. Commonwealth leaders condemned in the strongest terms the use of sexual violence in conflict—an issue that has been championed globally by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague). We also called for an end to early and forced marriage, and for greater freedom of religion and belief. We committed to taking urgent and decisive action against the illegal wildlife trade ahead of the conference in London next year. And Britain successfully resisted an attempt to usher Zimbabwe back into the Commonwealth without first addressing the deep concerns that remain about human rights and political freedoms.
	The Foreign Secretary and I also used the meeting to build the case for more open trade and for developing our links with the fastest growing parts of the world. The Commonwealth backed a deal at next month’s World Trade Organisation meeting in Bali that could cut bureaucracy at borders and generate $100 billion for the global economy. Before and after the summit in Sri Lanka, I continued to bang the drum for British trade and investment. I went to New Delhi and Calcutta in India before heading to Sri Lanka—the third time I have visited India as Prime Minister. And I went from the summit to Abu Dhabi and Dubai, where Airbus agreed new orders from Emirates and Etihad airlines that will add £5.4 billion to the British economy. These orders will sustain and secure 6,500 British jobs, including at the plants in north Wales and Bristol, and open up new opportunities for the Rolls-Royce factory in Derby.
	The last Government agreed, late in 2009, to hold the 2013 Commonwealth meeting in Sri Lanka. That was not my decision, but I was determined to use the presence of the Commonwealth and my own visit to shine a global spotlight on the situation there, and that is exactly what I did. I became the first foreign leader to visit the north of the country since independence in 1948 and, by taking the media with me, I gave the local population the chance to be heard by an international audience.
	I met the new provincial Chief Minister from the Tamil National Alliance, who was elected in a vote that happened only because of the spotlight of the Commonwealth meeting. I took our journalists to meet the incredibly brave Tamil journalists at the Uthayan newspaper in Jaffna, many of whom have seen their colleagues killed and who have themselves been beaten and intimidated. I met and heard from displaced people desperately wanting to return to their homes and their livelihoods. And as part of our support for reconciliation efforts across the country, I announced an additional £2.1 million to support de-mining work in parts of the north, including the locations of some of the most chilling scenes from Channel 4’s “No Fire Zone” documentary.
	When I met President Rajapaksa, I pressed for credible, transparent and independent investigations into alleged war crimes, and I made it clear to him that if those investigations were not begun properly by March, I would use our position on the United Nations Human Rights Council to work with the UN Human Rights Commissioner and call for an international inquiry. No one wants to return to the days of the Tamil Tigers and the disgusting and brutal things that they did. We should also show proper respect for the fact that Sri Lanka
	suffered almost three decades of bloody civil conflict and that recovery and reconciliation take time. But I made it clear to President Rajapaksa that he now has a real opportunity, through magnanimity and reform, to build a successful, inclusive and prosperous future for his country, working in partnership with the newly elected Chief Minister of the Northern Province. I very much hope that he seizes that opportunity.
	Sri Lanka has suffered an appalling civil war—and then of course suffered all over again from the 2004 tsunami; but it is an extraordinary and beautiful country with enormous potential. Achieving that potential is all about reconciliation. It is about bringing justice, closure and healing to the country, which now has the chance, if it takes it, of a much brighter future. That will happen only by dealing with these issues and not ignoring them.
	I had a choice at this summit: to stay away and allow President Rajapaksa to set the agenda he wanted, or to go and shape the agenda by advancing our interests with our Commonwealth partners and shining a spotlight on the international concerns about Sri Lanka. I chose to go and stand up for our values and to do all I could to advance them. I believe that that was the right decision for Sri Lanka, for the Commonwealth and for Britain. I commend this statement to the House.

Edward Miliband: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Let me start by saying that all our thoughts are with the people of the Philippines as they struggle to deal with the devastation of Typhoon Haiyan. Thirteen million people have been affected by the typhoon, over 4 million of them children; nearly 3 million have lost their homes and, as the Prime Minister said, thousands are believed to have lost their lives, including a number of British citizens. The pictures we have seen are of terrible devastation. As so often happens when disaster strikes anywhere in the world, the British people have reacted by reaching deep into their pockets: so far, £35 million has been donated by the British public through the Disasters Emergency Committee. I also want to thank our forces on HMS Daring and HMS Illustrious for the work they are doing to help with disaster relief, and to commend the leadership of the Prime Minister and the International Development Secretary in providing £50 million in aid. We need to see the same from other countries, as the UN appeal has only a quarter of the funds it needs. Therefore, may I ask the Prime Minister what actions the Government are taking to encourage other countries to commit and free up resources as quickly as possible to the Philippines, so that this UN aid target is met? Serious damage sustained to airports, seaports and roads continues to present major logistical challenges for the emergency response, so may I ask the Prime Minister what steps are being taken to ensure that humanitarian relief is reaching those in very remote and isolated areas who have been worst affected by the typhoon?
	On the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting —CHOGM—we welcome the communiqué’s conclusions on global threats and challenges, on programmes promoting Commonwealth collaboration and, of course, on development. At its best, the Commonwealth summit gathers together 53 countries seeking to promote common values, including democracy, accountability, the rule of
	law and human rights. I believe that this House is united in our abhorrence of terrorism and in recognising that what happened in Sri Lanka, particularly towards the end of the conflict in 2009, when tens of thousands of innocent civilians were murdered, totally fails the test of those values.
	It was for that reason that, at the 2009 Commonwealth summit, the last Labour Government blocked the plan for Sri Lanka to host the summit in 2011. As the current Foreign Secretary told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs:
	“The UK made clear…during the 2009 CHOGM...that we would be unable to support Sri Lanka’s bid to host in 2011.”
	Those are the words of the Foreign Secretary. Delaying the hosting of the summit until 2013 was to allow time for the Sri Lankan Government to show progress on human rights. This has not been the case; indeed, things have got worse, not better. I say to the Prime Minister that when he attended the summit in 2011, he could have acted precisely as the Labour Government of 2009 had done and brought together a coalition to block Sri Lanka’s hosting the Commonwealth summit in 2013.
	Let me ask the Prime Minister a series of questions. First, the Deputy Prime Minister said in May to this House that
	“if the Sri Lankan Government continue to ignore their international commitments in the lead up to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, of course there will be consequences.”—[Official Report, 15 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 634.]
	Can the Prime Minister tell us: what were those consequences for the Sri Lankan Government? Secondly, at the summit on Friday, the Prime Minister called for the Sri Lankan Government, as he said, to initiate an independent inquiry by March into allegations of war crimes. But by Sunday, President Rajapaksa had already appeared to reject this. The UN human rights commissioner called two years ago for an internationally-led inquiry, and we have supported that call. Is not the right thing to do now to build international support for that internationally-led process?
	Thirdly, after this summit the Sri Lankan President will be chair of the Commonwealth for the next two years—that includes attending the Commonwealth games. Did the Prime Minister have any discussions at the summit with other countries about whether President Rajapaksa was an appropriate person to play that role? Finally, the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of India decided not to attend this summit. In explaining his decision, Prime Minister Harper said:
	“In the past two years we have...seen...a considerable worsening of the situation.”
	Accepting the good intentions of the Prime Minister, were not Prime Ministers Harper and Singh right to believe that the attendance of Heads of Government at CHOGM would not achieve any improvement or prospects for improvement in human rights within Sri Lanka? Indeed, the summit communiqué failed even to reference the issue of human rights in Sri Lanka.
	The legacy of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka is in contradiction to the good traditions of the Commonwealth. We believe we cannot let the matter rest. Britain must do what it can to ensure that the truth emerges about the crimes that were committed, so that there can be justice for those who have suffered so much. When the Government act to make that happen, we will support them.

David Cameron: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the response on the Philippines. I agree with him: other countries need to do more, and we will continue to work with them, through both the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office, to make sure everyone lives up to their responsibilities. He asked specifically how we will ensure that relief gets through. That is why HMS Illustrious, with seven helicopters, joining the American carrier there can make a difference—because of the lift capacity.
	I am also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his response on Sri Lanka and the Commonwealth, but it is worth recalling that, had we listened to his advice, we would not be having this statement now in the House and discussing this issue. Given that Labour agreed to this conference taking place in Sri Lanka, criticising my attendance breaks new records for opportunism and double-speak. Let me respond very directly. In 2009, some time after the end of war, the last Government agreed that the conference should take place in 2013 in Sri Lanka. If he knows anything about foreign affairs—I doubt it, because he barely gets out of Islington—he would know that this is a consensus organisation: once something has been agreed, it is very difficult to unblock it. So it was in 2009 that the pass was sold. I have to say to him that, more than that, this shows very poor judgment. This is a multilateral organisation of which we are a leading member and our Queen is the head. How do we advance free trade if we are not there? How do we stand up for issues such as tax, transparency, tackling poverty, and preventing sexual violence in conflict? How do we do all that from 4,000 miles away?
	On Sri Lanka, the right hon. Gentleman specifically asked whether we pressed for our agenda. Yes, we did, very directly, on the importance of land reform, on the importance of human rights, on the importance of an independent inquiry. Of course, some other leaders decided to stay away, and everyone must take their own decision, but frankly, no country on earth has a more direct relationship with the Commonwealth than this one, and that is why it was right to go. If he is concerned about the rights of Tamils, as I am, and reconciliation, the right thing to do is to go and shine a spotlight on their plight. You cannot do that sitting at home. I remember when his brother said that we needed Foreign Secretaries and Prime Ministers who could stop the traffic in Beijing. He will not even get out of Primrose Hill. This whole area of judgment by the right hon. Gentleman is a sign of weakness. He was given a choice: an easy political path or a tough, right path, and he cops out every time—too weak to stand up to Len McCluskey, too weak to stand up for Britain abroad.

Menzies Campbell: May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s observations about the Philippines and congratulate him and the Government on ensuring such a remarkable response on behalf of the United Kingdom?
	I am not one of those who believes that the Prime Minister should not have attended. Unlike other Prime Ministers, he had a constitutional obligation to be present to provide support and, if necessary, advice for the Prince of Wales who was representing Her Majesty the Queen. Is not the rightness of the Prime Minister’s
	decision demonstrated eloquently by the quality and volume of the coverage he was able to achieve? Of course, the test will be the extent to which there is a proper follow-through. In that respect, will my right hon. Friend assure us that everything will be done to try to achieve unanimity of purpose at the United Nations for an inquiry of the kind he has outlined?

David Cameron: I am very grateful for what my right hon. and learned Friend says about the importance of attending. This point about media organisations is important, because they have been unable to travel freely in the north of the country. By taking respected organisations such as the BBC, ITV, Sky and Channel 4 directly to the areas affected in Jaffna, they were able literally to shine a spotlight on the things that have happened. He is entirely right to say that what matters now is follow-through, but what is important is that this is now an established part of Britain’s foreign policy—to raise at every international forum, in every way we can, the importance of a strong, united, prosperous and reconciled future for Sri Lanka, and that is exactly what we will do.

Ann Clwyd: The report from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on the FCO’s human rights work stated:
	“We recommend that the Prime Minister should obtain assurances from the Sri Lankan Government that people who approach him to talk about human rights while he is in Sri Lanka to attend the CHOGM do not face reprisals or harassment by security forces.”
	Was he able to obtain those assurances from the Sri Lankan Government, or not?

David Cameron: I made very clear to all the authorities I spoke to how important it was to be able to visit the north of the country, to meet refugees and displaced people and to raise their cases. That was exactly what I was able to do with the President. The world will now be watching what happens to those people, and I was given assurances that people were being re-housed and given new livelihoods. We will watch very carefully to see what happens to the people I met.

Henry Bellingham: I congratulate the Prime Minister on going to Jaffna and raising those difficult questions with President Rajapaksa. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that as Sri Lanka will be in the chair of the Commonwealth running up to the Mauritius CHOGM, it is incredibly important that it focus relentlessly on the agenda he encapsulated of good governance, the rule of law, free trade and wealth creation?

David Cameron: That is absolutely the agenda we should be addressing and pushing for. I would make the point that the role of the Commonwealth chair can be overstated, as it is the secretary-general who sets the agenda for the Commonwealth. Again, however, the Commonwealth is a consensus organisation. Once the previous Government had signed up to CHOGM’s being in Sri Lanka, the natural consequence was that Sri Lanka would be the de facto chair for two years. That flows from a Labour Government’s decision, not our decision.

Jack Straw: May I press the Prime Minister on the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd)? She asked him whether undertakings were given that there would be no harassment of those he met and had dealings with in the north. Re-housing is one thing, and it is important, but I would be very grateful if he expanded on that.

David Cameron: The point I was trying to make was that although undertakings that those people should not be harmed were vital, their cases should also be taken up by the Sri Lankan Government. The response of the Sri Lankan Government to such issues is not to say that such people do not exist or that there is nothing that can be done. They are saying, “Please give us time. We are dealing with this.” It is right for the international community to press them on these issues. Yes, there were many more internally displaced people four years ago, but there are still too many today and they need to be properly looked after.

Lee Scott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real issue at stake is the approximately 40,000 women, children and men—innocent people—who were slaughtered at the end of the conflict, and that the robust approach he showed on the visit to Sri Lanka and CHOGM should be carried through, as their memories deserve justice as well as the work that he has done? I have had many e-mails over the past few days thanking the Prime Minister for his robust approach, while also asking him to ensure that we take things forward in March if President Rajapaksa does not take his stance.

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I challenge almost anyone in the House to watch even part of the Channel 4 documentary about the events at the end of the war—when there were appalling levels of casualties among civilians in the north of the country who were, it seems, targeted—and not to believe that there should be a proper independent inquiry. Of course, dreadful things happened throughout the war and it is for the Sri Lankan Government to decide how they should be investigated. It is clear, however, that those particular events at the end of the war need an independent inquiry so that the issue can be properly settled.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Prime Minister explain how exactly he proposes to follow up his demand for an inquiry? What monitoring and reporting will there be, and what action will the Commonwealth take if and when Sri Lanka does not follow up on the assurances he was apparently given? Many people are dead, and many people are very angry about the abuses of human rights by the Sri Lankan Government.

David Cameron: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says. The key thing is that the UN high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, has made the point that there should be an independent inquiry and has set the deadline for when it should at least begin. If it is not begun, there needs to be, as she has said, an international independent inquiry. We are saying that we support that view and will put behind it Britain’s
	international diplomatic standing in all the organisations of which we are a member, including, of course, the United Nations.

Alan Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the fierce reaction in the Government-influenced press in Sri Lanka throughout his visit ensured that human rights in that country was the stand-out issue? Would he agree that in future CHOGMs, a stronger presence on the part of Commonwealth parliamentarians would help the whole matter of the promotion of human rights?

David Cameron: I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that links between Commonwealth parliamentarians are very helpful for raising these issues. His first point is absolutely spot-on: because of visiting the north and raising these issues, human rights, and questions about land reform, reconciliation, and investigations, were top of mind for the press, the media, and everyone in Sri Lanka in a way that they simply would not have been.

Mike Gapes: The Prime Minister says that the Government will press the issue in March next year at the United Nations Human Rights Council. In the light of that council’s woeful record—at one point, it actually praised the Government of Sri Lanka for their internal policies—how confident can he be, given the authoritarian states and friends of Rajapaksa who are on the council, that we will get anywhere on this in the UN?

David Cameron: I think this is going to be very hard pounding for a very long period of time, but what the Sri Lankan Government need to understand, and I think understand more today than perhaps they did a week ago, is that the issue is not going to go away, and if they do not hold an independent inquiry, the pressure for an international inquiry will grow and grow. Using the UN human rights machinery is the right way to do that.

Tony Baldry: The UN Special Court for Sierra Leone has been sitting in The Hague for some time now. It demonstrates that there is plenty of precedent showing that if the United Nations Security Council has the will, it is perfectly possible to devise mechanisms for independent judicial inquiries into crimes against humanity by UN member states.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend brings considerable expertise and experience to this area. I would argue that the Commonwealth, like the United Nations, is of course an imperfect organisation, but even with the Commonwealth, it is possible to point to examples where it has stood up for human rights and for democracy —perhaps particularly recently in the case of Fiji. We have to use these organisations to get the results that are right, in terms of human rights and these sorts of issues.

Nigel Dodds: I thank the Prime Minister for what the Government are doing on the Philippines disaster, and pay tribute to the many communities up and down the land who are contributing massively to the public appeal, not least in my constituency, where there is a community sit-out on the Shankill road to raise funds; I pay tribute to those involved.
	On the Commonwealth summit, may I press the Prime Minister on the issue of combating poverty? Will he tell us in more detail what has been done to combat corruption and promote good governance?

David Cameron: First of all, let me join the right hon. Gentleman in praising all those who are raising money for the Philippines Disasters Emergency Committee appeal. I think it is incredibly striking, in all our communities, how many people come straight out on to the streets and are rattling those tins and raising that money; at the weekend in my constituency, I saw rotary clubs doing precisely that.
	On the issue of tackling poverty and the link between corruption and poverty, in the report from the high-level panel, which I co-chaired, if we look at the 12 targets that we thought should be set, a lot of those concern things like access to justice, freedom from corruption, absence of press censorship, proper democracy and the rule of law, because those issues are vital in helping countries to move sustainably from poverty to wealth. That, I think, is the great thing about this high-level panel report: yes, it is about aid, and yes, it is about economic growth, but it recognises the golden thread of vital issues to do with democracy and institutions as well.

William Cash: Regarding the Philippines, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend, the Government and the British public for their very generous response? In addition, may I say that the Secretary of State for International Development has done the most amazingly sterling work? We owe her and her team enormous thanks for everything that she has done.

David Cameron: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The Department for International Development and the Secretary of State have done a superb job—in marshalling resources in response to the crisis, in working with the Ministry of Defence to get HMS Daring and then HMS Illustrious alongside, in generating income and money to go directly to the appeal, and in making sure that we work with our partners to do that. There are now two teams out there to assist with the Foreign Office effort, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has just told me that some of our experts on victim identification will be part of an Interpol team that will be there soon as well.

Paul Flynn: The Prime Minister’s call for an inquiry into the terrible events in Sri Lanka would carry a great deal more weight if he had not obstructed the report on the Iraq war. The Chilcot inquiry demanded papers to reach a conclusion on why, 10 years ago, the House made a decision to join Bush’s war in Iraq, with the loss of 179 British lives.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is on a different ski slope altogether today.

David Cameron: rose—

Mr Speaker: It is ingenious and imaginative—the hon. Gentleman is always that—but the Prime Minister is already on his feet.

David Cameron: I am responsible for many things, but holding up the Iraq inquiry is not one of them. Conservative Members and, indeed, my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches called for an inquiry, we voted for an inquiry and we worked for an inquiry year after year before one was finally set up. I very much hope that its conclusions will shortly be available for all to see.

Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Commonwealth is in many ways uniquely placed to take advantage of the global world in which we all live? Will he say a little more about the opportunities for commercial development between Commonwealth countries, particularly this country and the Commonwealth?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Commonwealth brings quite different and disparate countries together—some of the largest on earth, such as India, but also some of the smallest and most fragile island states in the world. It is a forum in which we can discuss issues, share values and perspectives, but also, yes, talk about business and trade, which is why there is a business angle to the events in which we took part. We should use all those forums to push for our agenda of free trade and trade facilitation, and there is an important meeting coming up in Bali very soon.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the Prime Minister’s third visit to India, and his first to Calcutta. In Jaffna, he saw the devastation and grief inflicted on the Tamil people by President Rajapaksa. Is he aware that we continue to deport Tamil people from this country to Sri Lanka, where they are tortured? Will he speak to the Home Secretary about updating the advice given on the Home Office website so that we can protect those people, who are genuinely seeking asylum in our country?

David Cameron: The asylum system should work on the basis of the best and latest information about whether someone genuinely faces a risk of torture and persecution if they return. Of course, I shone a light on some of the human rights abuses that are taking place, but it is also right to point out that in Sri Lanka today warfare, civil war, terrorism and violence of that kind are not taking place, so we should be clear and welcome that. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about my third visit to India and my first to Calcutta. This is part of building the special relationship that I believe should exist between Britain and India, and which spans diplomacy, politics, trade and other international relations.

Stephen O'Brien: I congratulate the Prime Minister on the high impact that he and the British Government have had in relation to the Philippines. That includes not just the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development but the extension resourced through the armed forces, which is most welcome. In relation to CHOGM, the
	Sri Lankan President proposes a truth and reconciliation process, but that is not adequate to meet the concerns and anxieties about alleged war crimes. We therefore need to follow the process proposed by the Prime Minister, however good the truth and reconciliation processes have been in South Africa and Mali.

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I accept that the Sri Lankan Government have set up some processes, including the ones to which he referred, but too many of them have been military-led inquiries—basically, private inquiries into events at the end of the war—rather than a proper, independent inquiry, which is what needs to be held.

Elfyn Llwyd: I have to confess that I thought it unwise to go to Sri Lanka, but having heard the Prime Minister’s statement and what he now plans to do I am changing my mind—not a bad thing, possibly. As someone who has raised the Tamil question many times in the past 20 years or so, may I urge him and the Foreign Secretary to give due priority to the issue to ensure that at an early stage we will have a just peace and reconciliation on this worried island?

David Cameron: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind and very generous remarks, and for the way in which he put them. I completely agree. Having made this visit, having taking this important stand and having given the issue the attention it deserves, we must now make sure that we follow through, but we should do so on a basis of huge optimism about the potential future of the country. If proper efforts at reconciliation are made, there is no reason why that country, which is now essentially at peace and is not suffering warfare and terrorism, cannot be an immense success story in the future.

Simon Hughes: As somebody who was very uncomfortable about the meeting happening in Sri Lanka in the first place and very troubled by our participation endorsing President Rajapaksa, may I, too, commend the Prime Minister for being extremely robust and effective on the war crimes issue, and encourage him down that road? Was he able to ask any questions about disappeared people and about assassinations, and is there a chance that the Commonwealth, under its next Secretary-General, will stand up for human rights better than it has been doing?

David Cameron: I thank my right hon. Friend for his very kind remarks and for what he said about my attendance at the summit. I did raise the issue of the disappeared, and at the refugee centre in the displaced persons village I met some people who told me about relatives who had disappeared. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), held a meeting with families of the disappeared, so the issue was raised at every level in our engagement with the Sri Lankan authorities. We must continue to raise these issues in the months and years ahead. There is much to commend in the Commonwealth, but it is an imperfect organisation. At its best it does stand up for values that we all share and believe in, and the more it does so the better an organisation it will be.

Siobhain McDonagh: In answer to a question, the Prime Minister suggested that he had made a tough and brave decision to go to CHOGM. May I tell him through you, Mr Speaker, that the tough and brave decision was that of those family members of the disappeared who were willing to approach him? They are now at serious risk for their lives, the lives of their families and the future of relatives they have not seen for years. What are the Government going to do, and principally what is the British high commission in Colombo going to do, to ensure the safety of those families?

David Cameron: I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. The bravery that was shown was by the displaced people who were prepared to meet me and to speak out about their concerns. Bravery was shown by all those who have lost relatives and who do not know where they are. Also, it was incredible to meet journalists who have stood up for freedom of the press and risked assassination, torture and persecution. In the offices of the Uthayan newspaper are pictures around the walls of journalists who died reporting facts and truth in Sri Lanka. We should do everything we can, including through the high commission, to make sure that nobody who spoke out or met me suffers in any way at all. It is now very public who I met and where I went, and our engagement with the Sri Lankan Government could not be clearer about the importance not only of their safety, but of making sure that they are properly housed and have access to a livelihood as part of reconciliation.

Mark Pritchard: At this time of national crisis for the Philippines, will the Prime Minister join me in calling on the splinter groups of the MNLF and MILF in the southern Philippines to lay down their arms in order that the Philippines army can help the needy throughout the whole of the country, rather than take up arms against rebel groups?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the Philippines. The overwhelming priority now must be getting aid to people who need it and trying to put that country back together again.

Eilidh Whiteford: In the wake of the disaster in the Philippines, our leading aid agencies have said that the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events should act as a wake-up call for the international community to do a lot more on climate change. Does the Prime Minister agree, and what does he intend to do?

David Cameron: I do agree that climate change presents huge dangers for our planet. There is a strong case for saying that there are connections between unusual weather events and the climate change that is taking place. That is why it is important to keep the issue high up the international agenda. At the Commonwealth conference I was able to raise the fact of the international climate fund, to which Britain has made a significant contribution, and how it should be helping these countries. The Commonwealth is a good place to make the point because many members are very vulnerable small island states for whom climate change is literally an existential challenge.

Margot James: Manufacturers in the black country will be reassured to hear that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary used the Commonwealth meeting to promote our trading links with the fastest growing parts of the world. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the prospects for more open trade with India following his very successful meeting with Mr Tata?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We continue to push with India the case for a free trade agreement. With India being effectively in an election year, I am not sure that we will make huge progress now, but we continue to make the arguments and demonstrate the figures for how beneficial it would be for both our countries, and for the EU, to have this agreement go ahead.

Sandra Osborne: What progress can the Prime Minister point to in relation to human rights in the Commonwealth? Is he, for example, aware of the excellent report of the Kaleidoscope Trust, chaired by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), on the state of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people’s rights in the Commonwealth? An incredible 41 countries still criminalise same sex activity by adults. Is not that a disgrace?

David Cameron: We have a very clear view that there should be proper rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and we do raise these issues, including at the Commonwealth meeting, as the Minister of State and the Foreign Secretary did. The report that the hon. Lady mentions is an excellent report. It is still depressing that so many countries persecute gay people, but there has in some countries been some progress in terms of greater rights and, as we have done in this country, celebrating gay marriage.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Despite the fact that 53 countries signed up to the communiqué to uphold the Commonwealth’s core values, does my right hon. Friend not think that the Commonwealth has a long way to go to uphold those core values, particularly if some countries thought that Zimbabwe could creep back in?

David Cameron: I completely agree with what my hon. Friend says. At its best, the Commonwealth comes together and signs up to important declarations, such as the Perth declaration on human rights, but sadly, at its worst, those values are not always stood up for in every case. We can point to the good places, such as Fiji, excluded from the Commonwealth, given a path back to the Commonwealth if the right things happen, but we can all point to examples where these values have not been properly upheld. But it is an organisation that we should be proud to belong to and want to make it deliver to its best.

Pat McFadden: Given what happened at the end of the war in Sri Lanka and what has happened since, why does the Prime Minister think that the Sri Lankan Government can be trusted to set up a proper independent inquiry? Why is it not right for us to press now for what he said he might press for in March, which is an international inquiry in which the world can have trust?

David Cameron: Just to be clear, I have not said we might support it; I have said we will support it. What is required is an independent inquiry, and if there is not a proper independent inquiry, we will—will, not might—push for an independent international inquiry in March. That is the right approach. The Sri Lankan Government need to be put to the test. The war is over. The terrorism is finished. They have this incredible opportunity. It is no good the shadow Foreign Secretary just sitting there. He was the first one who said there was no point going; there was nothing to talk about; nothing Britain could do. It is the sort of stick-your-head-in-the-sand approach to diplomacy that does absolutely no good for this country or for human rights.

Julian Lewis: Does the Prime Minister agree that the excellent work of the Royal Navy in the Philippines crisis well illustrates its unique capability not only to project power but to provide assistance around the world, and will not that capability be massively increased when we have two fleet carriers providing that sort of potential for the future?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right that our Royal Navy does have these multiple purposes. One of the strengths of HMS Illustrious is that it has the ability to desalinate water, and it also carries seven helicopters, and the two new carriers will be even more capable of such a role in the future.

Barry Sheerman: The Prime Minister looks a little like someone sticking their head in the sand when it comes to the environment. All the world’s scientists are looking at what is happening to our planet’s climate, but I read all the news reports of the conference and saw nothing on the environment, and there was nothing on the environment in his statement today. Global warming is going to destroy our planet. Why did he not take a lead on that at the conference?

David Cameron: It is obviously quite difficult to take a lead at a conference if one does not attend, which of course is what Members on the hon. Gentleman’s Front Bench were suggesting. In my contribution I talked about the importance of integrating our goals on climate change into our general approach to tackling poverty. I made the point that, with so many small island states that are so vulnerable in the Commonwealth, this is an existential issue for them and we should support them, including through the international climate fund, which is exactly what we are doing.

Matthew Offord: For some time now many Government Members have been privately pressing the Sri Lankan Government to undertake an independent inquiry in order to allay the fears of our constituents, including my constituent, Mr Jana Mahalingam, who regularly corresponds with me on the issue. Does the Prime Minister agree that although peace has come through the ending of violence, the battle is now for reconciliation, which could be achieved through an independent inquiry?

David Cameron: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. An independent inquiry is essential, but we should be clear that reconciliation is so much more than
	that. There were issues put to me about restoring land to people who have been moved from their homes, about the army needing to play a reduced role in the north of the country, and about real change being needed with regard to respecting the elected chief Minister in the north of the country. That is both frustrating and yet quite exciting: the country is, at one level, at peace, because there is no more war or terrorism, so the Government can afford to be generous and magnanimous, and that is exactly what they should do.

Heidi Alexander: Further to the question from the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), does the Prime Minister accept that over the past few years the British Government have forcibly returned Tamil asylum seekers to Sri Lanka, only for them to be bundled into white vans at Colombo airport and subjected to horrific torture? Is he proud of his asylum policies?

David Cameron: Our asylum polices should be based on the latest information and on proper judgments about whether people are likely to be tortured or persecuted on their return. That is not a decision that is made by Prime Ministers, or even by Ministers, but it is right that those decisions are properly taken account of in each case, and that is the way it should happen.

Richard Benyon: Many people will be really pleased to see something in the communiqué about the illegal trade in wildlife. The Prime Minister and his fellow Commonwealth leaders have grasped that that is about not only the tragic loss of iconic species, but the funding of organisations such as al-Shabaab and the Lord’s Resistance Army. What can he and his Commonwealth colleagues do now to try to influence the demand for those items of trade, which is fuelling the high prices that poachers can get in African countries, for example?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There needs to be a process of education to try to reduce demand for those products, because that, of course, is what drives the trade in the first place. I am excited that next year we will be having that very important conference in the United Kingdom, bringing all the experts together, when we can really give as big a boost as possible.

Kevin Brennan: Is it the Prime Minister’s position that the Governments of Canada, India and Mauritius, by deciding not to attend the summit, exercised a serious misjudgement and are sticking their heads in the sand?

David Cameron: My point is simply this: this country has a unique relationship with the Commonwealth and it would therefore have been completely wrong, opportunistic and irresponsible not to go. I think that has been demonstrated amply this afternoon.

David Nuttall: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, which I warmly welcome. I think that he was absolutely right to go to Sri Lanka and demonstrate this country’s commitment to the Commonwealth. Does he agree that one concrete way
	of demonstrating our continued commitment to the Commonwealth would be to establish dedicated channels of entry at UK airports for Commonwealth citizens, on the grounds that if it is good enough for the European Union it is good enough for the Commonwealth?

David Cameron: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I think that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary might have a few things to say about new, simpler routes for people to come to this country. What we have tried to do is improve our visa system. For instance, in India we have introduced a one-day visa system. Of course, we should look at all countries on the basis of how we can have an improved visa system and encourage people who genuinely want to come here to visit, but we should also ensure that there are not abuses, and I am afraid that we have to apply those rules to Commonwealth countries as well.

Chris Bryant: The war may be over, as the Prime Minister says, but there are still many Sri Lankans here in this country, particularly Tamils, who are seeking asylum and are being given first decisions that are so dubious that they have been overturned at appeal. Will the Prime Minister, with the new information that he has personally gained, look again at the way we treat people who are seeking asylum from Sri Lanka in this country?

David Cameron: As I have said, our work should be based on the latest evidence. It is not the case that every single Tamil who comes here or to another country would be persecuted on their return. We would be making a great mistake if we took a blanket view like that; it should be done on the evidence.

Craig Whittaker: Like other colleagues, I thank my right hon. Friend for the tremendous effort that the Secretary of State for DFID and her Department are undertaking in relation to the truly shocking humanitarian disaster in the Philippines. This is of course Britain showing, as always, where we morally belong and should be. I know that it is very early days, but can the Prime Minister update us on whether any longer-term help has been requested or, indeed, offered for when the initial crisis is over?

David Cameron: We are working on the issue of longer-term assistance. The real need now is to help with the disaster in its recovery phase. That is why the heavy-lift equipment, the planes, the helicopters and the work of the RAF are so vital. That is what needs to be done now, and then we need longer-term planning about the needs of the Philippines and how we can help.

John Cryer: Is the Prime Minister aware of any lobbying activities undertaken by the Sri Lankan Government within Westminster, either directly or through third-party lobbying companies?

David Cameron: I am frequently lobbied by the high commissioner for Sri Lanka who is here in the UK, and obviously he wants to put the best gloss on everything that is happening in his country, but one of the most important things is going to see some of these things for yourself rather than simply reading about them.

David Burrowes: Some hon. Members may recall David Miliband, the chief executive of the International Rescue Committee, saying when Foreign Secretary that the Sri Lankan Government have engaged in a war without witness. Can the Prime Minister assure me that following his visit Sri Lankans can all benefit from a peace with witnesses?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. What is required is peace and reconciliation and proper rights for everyone who lives in Sri Lanka. As I said, the fact that the world is going to be watching how this reconciliation takes place is very important.

Nick Smith: Given the defiant tone of President Rajapaksa after the summit, does the Prime Minister really believe that progress on human rights by March next year is possible?

David Cameron: That decision rests with the Sri Lankan Government. I do not think it is fair to say that they have done nothing in response to the need for action or, indeed, international pressure. As I said, the fact that an election has taken place in the northern province and a new chief minister has been elected who is part of the Tamil National Alliance is a very positive step forward. We will not get anywhere if we do not point to the positive things that are happening as well as being very tough and firm about where further action is needed.

Jeremy Lefroy: Yesterday in church I heard the moving testimony of some Filipino members of our congregation about the effects of the disaster on their families and relatives. Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), does the Prime Minister agree that we should be working very closely with the large Filipino community in the United Kingdom on how we can continue to help in the future development and rescue of the country?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend has lots of expertise in the area of aid and development, and I am sure that he will want to work on this issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who has recently met the Philippine ambassador here in the UK. We want to bring all these brains to bear to make sure we get the right development and reconstruction effort together.

Andrew Love: While recognising the good intentions of the Prime Minister in going to the north of Sri Lanka, that action has failed to drag any concessions out of President Rajapaksa or to convince his Commonwealth colleagues to sign a communiqué criticising human rights in Sri Lanka. What confidence does the Prime Minister have that in five months’ time or so action can be taken on its chairmanship of the Commonwealth and on setting up a United Nations investigation?

David Cameron: As I said, the decision will rest with the Sri Lankan President, but I do not think that anyone can be in any doubt that they are under more pressure today than they were a week ago, or a month ago, because of the international attention that has
	been shone on these issues—they know that the world will be watching. One only has to watch President Rajapaksa’s press conference, which was dominated by questions about human rights and inquiries into what happened at the end of the war, to see that there is pressure today that there was not a week ago.

Michael Ellis: Does the Prime Minister know that he was described recently in the Australian press as a
	“defender of democratic ideals and confident international statesman”?
	Is it not the case that he was right to go to Sri Lanka because of the constitutional obligation of supporting the head of the Commonwealth and her representative the Prince of Wales, and because the concomitant publicity, both in the UK and around the world, has highlighted the issue front and centre?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It was right to take that stand and attend, and to stand up for the Commonwealth. Above all, it was an important meeting of a multilateral organisation in which we play an important part. I have been called quite a lot of things in recent days, but let me put it this way: those views are not always necessarily shared widely in the Cameron household.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The Prime Minister has made much of the spotlight his visit has shone on human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. What do we make of the fact that not only was there no communiqué, but that in the final statement there was no mention of those human rights abuses, let alone an inquiry into them?

David Cameron: As the hon. Gentleman will know, one of the strengths of the Commonwealth, but also the source of some of its trouble, is that it is an organisation based on consensus. If someone disagrees with a potential conclusion it is effectively struck out. It was not, therefore, possible to have everything in the communiqué that we wanted. Is there, however, pressure on the Sri Lankan Government to act, to reconcile and to sort these problems out? As I said, there is more pressure today than there has been for a while.

Rory Stewart: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development on the work in the Philippines. I encourage the Government to make a clearer commitment over five years to ensure that the assistance in the Philippines does not cease when the headlines cease.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes the important point that we must be helpful in the long term. I do not think it is possible now to predict exactly what the needs and priorities will be—we are still in the recovery phase—but proper work should be done to see what we can do to help. With our 0.7% of gross national income aid commitment, Britain is in the forefront of doing the right thing internationally. I am sure we can bring some of that to bear in the Philippines.

Peter Bone: The British people, seeing the television pictures from Sri Lanka of the Prime Minister smashing Muralitharan for six, will
	think that the Prime Minister is auditioning for a role in the England Ashes team. Afterwards, Muralitharan said that the situation in the north was improving. Would the Prime Minister like to comment on that?

David Cameron: First, I did not hit Muralitharan for six. Secondly, I think he was being quite gentle with me. I certainly could not read which way the ball was going to go and I was fairly lucky to hit it at all. He made a good point that a huge amount of progress has been made in terms of peace, stability and economic prosperity. His organisation is bringing together Tamils, Sinhalese and others to help forge the country together. He is doing amazing work and we should back that work. He also thought I was right to attend and to raise these issues. What he wants, as a proud Sri Lankan, is to ensure that a fair picture is painted of his country, and he is right to say that.

Duncan Hames: The Prime Minister clearly succeeded in raising concerns about human rights in Sri Lanka. At the Commonwealth summit, did he or his officials get the chance to raise, with the Government of Bangladesh, our Government’s wish for them to address concerns about the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh, the upholding of fair trial standards and the use of the death penalty for those convicted?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised those specific issues with the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh. We have a good engagement with that country, and no issues are off limits.

Phillip Lee: The typhoon in the Philippines is just the latest natural disaster to afflict the globe. In the light of such dreadful events, is the Prime Minister interested in hearing more about my idea for the Government to build a mobile army surgical hospital capability that Britain could deploy swiftly into the field. The deployment of naval forces, although very welcome, can take days, but a MASH unit can be deployed within 24 hours of his decision.

David Cameron: I would be interested to hear about that idea. As my hon. Friend knows, we have emergency capabilities that can be sent out of the country very rapidly, but there is always room to see whether we can improve such an issue, either at a British level or by doing things with partners.

Andrew Jones: Amnesty International has welcomed the Prime Minister’s call for
	“genuine freedom of expression and…an end to the intimidation of journalists”.
	Does my right hon. Friend think that it would have been as easy to speak up for the freedom of the Sri Lankan press had he stayed in London?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. Being able to take journalists to the north of the country, particularly to the Uthayan newspaper, so many of whose journalists have been injured or killed in the course of their work, was a very powerful way of drawing attention to the importance of a free press and of freedom from intimidation.

Neil Carmichael: I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, not least because it rams home the importance of Britain’s involvement in the international community. On trade, does he agree that the welcome news about the Airbus order, worth £5.4 billion, is excellent for the south-west and for Stroud, which supplies parts of the aircraft?

David Cameron: It is very good news that both Etihad Airways and Emirates airline have effectively ordered 50 aircraft each. Of course, the wings are made in Wales, the landing gear in Bristol and, indeed, many of the engines will be made by Rolls-Royce in Derby. It is really good news. This is the high-end, high-skilled jobs that we need, and it has very much been backed by the Government, because we have put a lot of money into the Aerospace Technology Institute and the Aerospace Growth Partnership that we are building with the industry.

James Duddridge: The Department for International Development’s work in the Philippines has been innovative, successful and very popular. Has my right hon. Friend considered supporting disaster resilience programmes similar to the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) more broadly, and looking at resilience planning for potential disasters, rather than simply waiting for disasters to happen?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are looking specifically at whether we can do even better in the rapid response element. I remember, particularly from what happened in Haiti, that British firefighters and experts can play a vital job in rescuing people in the early stages of a disaster, but only if they get there quickly. There is always room to try to do better, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will listen to those suggestions.

Robin Walker: The Commonwealth can be a powerful force for good in the world, as demonstrated by the centrality of human rights and shared prosperity to its charter, but does the Prime Minister agree that it is only as good as the commitment of its members? I congratulate him on showing a real commitment to both the Commonwealth and human rights, rather than taking the easy political option of running away.

David Cameron: Any institution works only as well as the political will of its members. We can sometimes obsess too much about the precise make-up of the institution, but we need to look at the political will that goes into defending the values to which we have signed up.

Harriett Baldwin: The Prime Minister rightly highlighted the extensive work done by the Foreign Secretary to end the abhorrent practice of sexual violence in conflict. Given the evidence of that having occurred in Sri Lanka, what can our Government do to assist the victims?

David Cameron: The first thing we must do is to continue the Foreign Secretary’s excellent work to drive the issue to the top of the international agenda. Some
	really important steps in relation to commitments from other countries and through the UN have now been made. The specific allegations are one reason why the independent inquiry that we have talked about this afternoon is so important.

Rehman Chishti: With personal experience of being affected by a natural disaster—I lost 30 relatives, as well as my grandfather, in the Kashmir earthquake in 2005—may I thank the then Secretary of State for International Development and the current Secretary of State for the work done by the UK and the public then and now to help rescue people and save lives? I urge the Government to provide long-term support and assistance to hard-to-reach rural areas whose whole livelihoods have been thrown away. Such people need our help, as I know from experience. Will the Prime Minister make them a top priority?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. He speaks movingly about how his family were affected by the situation in Kashmir. The key thing is to consider what long-term help and development assistance we can provide for rebuilding and to look at resilience against future natural disasters. That is something for which the international climate fund can be used.

Julian Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree that the Leader of the Opposition’s cynical approach to his excellent trip to Sri Lanka contrasts starkly with the incredible—

Mr Speaker: Order. I have tried to be generous. We have heard the point. The Prime Minister has made his point of view very clear. We do not need to rehearse the position of the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman needs to be a bit more delphic and perhaps a little less clumsy.

Tobias Ellwood: May I welcome the statement and the taskings of HMS Daring and HMS Illustrious, which are joining the USS George Washington? This situation underlines why we need both new aircraft carriers and to ensure that one is always available. Does the Prime Minister agree that the new aircraft carriers and the new Type 26s must have the ability to assist in upstream engagement, stabilisation and humanitarian tasks, as well as having the high-end war-fighting capabilities?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of the aircraft carriers and the capabilities that they will bring. In particular, they will be used as a platform for helicopters, for desalination and for command and control. They will bring a huge amount of capability to tasks like this one.

Philip Hollobone: Given the generous response of the Great British public to the disaster in the Philippines, it is clear that this is international aid that everyone can support. All of us applaud the efforts of our servicemen and women and British charity workers on the ground. Given that we meet our target of 0.7% of gross national income, that we are one of the most
	generous charitable donors of international aid in the world and that the defence budget is one of the tightest in Whitehall, how is our military spending on such occasions offset against our international aid target?

David Cameron: I think that we have the right balance. As a country, we spend almost £35 billion on our defence budget. It is the fourth largest defence budget in the world and it still will be at the end of this Parliament. Under this Government, there is much better co-ordination between international development and defence. That is why we have the conflict pool, which brings Whitehall Ministers and money together to work out how the money can best be spent. Sometimes that involves using our defence assets to help countries that are in need.

Stephen Mosley: If you will bear with me for a second, Mr Speaker, I was disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition did not welcome the £5.4 billion order that Airbus gained over the weekend. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the deal and in congratulating the workers of Broughton, who manufacture the wings? It is their expertise and skills that make Airbus such a world-beater.

David Cameron: That was extraordinarily skilfully done. My hon. Friend is right to stand up for the workers in Broughton, whom I have visited several times. They have incredible skills and produce incredible technology. We should be proud of our contribution to Airbus’s international success and must do everything we can to back it. That is why I went to the Dubai air show, where far more British companies were holding stands and putting forward their wares. We should be full-hearted in supporting such industries.

Bob Stewart: Did the Prime Minister detect any signs, even small ones, from the Sri Lankan Government that crimes against humanity might have been carried out by their security forces when operating in the north of the island?

David Cameron: I obviously discussed that issue with President Rajapaksa, as well as the need for an independent inquiry. The Sri Lankan Government’s current position is that they do not believe such an inquiry to be necessary and that they have their own processes and procedures. However, it is fair to say that they recognise that questions are being asked internationally and that they will have to provide some answers. The answer is that we must keep up the pressure.

Robert Halfon: Many people in our country will be proud of our Government for standing up against mass murder and genocide in Syria and Sri Lanka. The Tamils will be comforted by the Prime Minister’s strong visit to the north of Sri Lanka. Will he continue to ensure that the Sri Lankan regime is held accountable? If there is evidence that any member of the Sri Lankan regime has committed war crimes, whether from a Sri Lankan inquiry or a United Nations inquiry, will he look at bringing them to the International Criminal Court for justice?

David Cameron: Of course, that remains an option, but the most important thing is to get the independent inquiry under way. I would urge colleagues who have
	not seen some of the evidence in the recent Channel 4 documentary to look at that, because one really can see the need for rapid answers to the allegations made.

Julian Brazier: I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for International Development and for Defence for a model example of a joined-up government response to the horrors in the Philippines. Did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have time, in the margins of the conference, to discuss with President Hussain the dialogue that he has managed—singlehandedly more or less—to get going between himself and President Karzai over the vital future of Afghanistan?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for what he says about the joined-up nature of government between the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development. That joined-up government is now working well, through the National Security Council and things such as the conflict pool, which brings money together for states, particularly those facing instability. We have massively increased the amount of money going into that pool.
	I was fortunate to sit next to the Pakistani Prime Minister during one of the sessions and so had a good conversation about the progress we were making with the trilateral approach and the better relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Both countries recognise their mutual interests in peace and prosperity as democratic states living side by side.

David Rutley: I welcome today’s statement and the leadership the Prime Minister is showing in the Philippines, as well as the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). Will the Prime Minister join us in highlighting the important work that Filipino community groups, such as MaccPinoy in Macclesfield, are doing across the country in raising the important funds, clothing and food required by families and friends back in the Philippines?

David Cameron: It is important to recognise that there will be many people from the Philippines here in the UK desperately worried about their relatives back home. We should be with them at this time and praising their efforts to raise money and resources for the disaster recovery appeal.

Therese Coffey: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will continue to stand up for British values abroad and not play opportunist politics while important human rights issues are being discussed? Many of the people affected by those issues are currently living through a nightmare.

David Cameron: That is important on two counts. First, this is the Commonwealth, a multilateral organisation, and we should be there making our arguments, because if we do not, we will lose important battles over the issues we care about. Secondly, it provided an opportunity to talk about human rights specifically in Sri Lanka and to raise their profile in a way that would not have been possible sitting at home.

Andrew Bridgen: Human Rights Watch has praised my right hon. Friend for honouring his promise and delivering a strong message on human rights abuses and allegations of war crimes while in Sri Lanka. Does he agree that had he listened to the advice of some political leaders and not attended in Sri Lanka, that message would have gone completely unheard and unreported?

David Cameron: It is notable that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which might have had some doubts about my attending, have made it clear that we put forward human rights in a way that Britain can be very proud of.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Prime Minister and all 61 Back Benchers who questioned him.

Commission on Devolution in Wales

David Jones: Since the general election, the Wales Office has made investment in infrastructure its No. 1 priority to deliver growth in the Welsh economy. This Government have already committed over £2.25 billion to new infrastructure that will benefit Wales, directly or indirectly. We are spending almost £2 billion to modernise the rail network, including electrifying the Great Western main line to Swansea and the railways serving the south Wales valleys. We are investing £250 million to build a new prison in north Wales that will create up to 1,000 new jobs and require a supply chain that will bring an estimated £28 million a year more into the local economy. We have also committed £57 million to bring superfast broadband to Wales, a key element of a modern infrastructure network. Alongside that, Hitachi’s investment in new nuclear at Wylfa Newydd is a great opportunity to create jobs and drive economic growth across north Wales.
	Earlier this month, I confirmed in a written statement to the House that we would enable the Welsh Government to use their existing borrowing powers to start work as soon as possible on the sorely needed upgrade to the M4 around Newport, tackling the congestion that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has described as
	“a foot on the windpipe of the Welsh economy”.
	Today, in making our full response to the Silk commission’s recommendations, the Government are unveiling a new and extensive package of financial powers that will be devolved to the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government. I would like to commend my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and Jane Hutt, the Welsh Minister for Finance, for the positive and collaborative approach taken in agreeing this package of powers, which demonstrates the strength of the United Kingdom, and the flexibility and adaptability of devolution within our Union.
	The Silk commission made 33 recommendations, 31 of which were for the Government to consider. Today we are accepting, in full or in part, all but one. We are devolving many new financial powers to the National Assembly and the Welsh Government, potentially giving the Welsh Government control over more than £3 billion of tax revenue, with commensurate levels of borrowing. We are providing the Welsh Government with additional tools to invest in the areas they are responsible for, to enable them to upgrade Wales’s infrastructure and help to quicken the pace of economic growth. This will facilitate the improvement of Wales’s deteriorating road network—not only the M4, which I have mentioned, but the other key Welsh trans-European route, the north Wales expressway.
	The devolution of tax and borrowing powers will also make the Assembly and the Welsh Government more accountable to the people of Wales who elect them. Since devolution, the Assembly and the Welsh Government have been accountable only for how they spend taxpayers’ money; they will now become more accountable for how they raise it. The Government’s response to the Silk commission’s first report builds on the announcement made by the Prime Minister and the
	Deputy Prime Minister earlier this month, and sets out in detail the devolved financial powers we are giving to the National Assembly for Wales. We will give Welsh Ministers borrowing powers, so they can invest in the capital infrastructure I have described. We will devolve landfill tax and stamp duty land tax in Wales, ensuring that the Welsh Government have an independent funding stream to pay back the money they borrow.
	We will also provide for a referendum to take place, so that people in Wales can decide whether some of their income tax should be devolved to the Welsh Government. Subject to the approval of the people of Wales in a referendum, we will deduct 10p from each of the main UK income tax rates in Wales, with the Welsh Government able to set an unrestricted Welsh rate of income tax for all Welsh taxpayers. This is consistent with the system being introduced in Scotland and will increase the accountability of the Welsh Government, while avoiding significant risks to UK revenues that would result from different Welsh rates for each band.
	We will also fully devolve non-domestic business rates raised in Wales, so that the Welsh Government budget benefits more directly from growth in Wales; enable the National Assembly for Wales to create new taxes, with the UK Government’s consent; and devolve the tools to manage these new powers. A cash reserve will be created that the Welsh Government can add to when revenues are high and utilise when they are below forecast. We will also provide the Welsh Government with limited current borrowing powers to deal with shortfalls if their cash reserve is insufficient.
	I was pleased that Carwyn Jones, the First Minister of Wales, welcomed the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister’s announcement earlier this month. This package of powers gives the Welsh Government additional tools to invest in Wales to rejuvenate the Welsh economy, which has languished behind the rest of the United Kingdom for far too long. This package will make the Assembly and the Welsh Government more accountable to the people they serve and place important taxation levers in the hands of the Welsh Government, which, if used wisely, can help to make Wales a more prosperous place. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Wales. I hope that the Welsh Government will rise to the challenge and look beyond the M4 to invest wisely and strategically across the whole of Wales. I will place a copy of the response in the Libraries of both Houses, and I commend this statement to the House.

Owen Smith: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement on this historic occasion. It is almost a year since the Silk Commission produced its report and 16 years since the last time a Conservative Secretary of State for Wales made a statement in this House—better late than never. Labour Members certainly welcome the acceptance of the Silk recommendations, especially coming from a Secretary of State who once described devolution as constitutional damage.
	I would like to thank Paul Silk and his team for their work in producing the report. That report and the Government’s response to it are of enormous significance to the people of Wales—a part of the UK that has been harder hit by this Tory Government than anywhere else. Welsh wages have fallen faster and further than anywhere
	else in the UK, the Welsh budget has been cut by £1.7 billion by the current Tory Government, and we have seen energy and other bills rise higher and faster than elsewhere. That is the reality of the context of today’s announcement.
	Because of those cuts, the Welsh Government have sought borrowing powers and agreed with the Silk recommendations that Wales should be able to exercise those powers, as Scotland and Northern Ireland presently do. We welcome the confirmation that Wales will in future have the capacity to borrow in order to invest in infrastructure, but will the Secretary of State clarify some of the many details that are left outstanding after today’s announcement?
	First, will he clarify exactly when he expects that package of borrowing to be in place for the initial tranche of investment in the M4 and other roads? More importantly, will he tell us about the process by which that level of borrowing will be agreed? The Government previously indicated that the devolution of the minor taxes such as stamp duty and landfill tax, which are being devolved today, would be sufficient to trigger significant borrowing powers for the Welsh Government. Today’s statement, however, seems to suggest that that borrowing would now be contingent on income tax-varying powers being taken up in Wales. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether that is the case and say how much borrowing will be released once the minor taxes are devolved? Will he further confirm whether a mechanism, a set of methods and a formula similar to that used in Scotland under the Scotland Act 2012, which affords about £230 million of borrowing to Scotland, would be the method employed in Wales?
	We welcome the devolution of the minor taxes—stamp duty and landfill tax—as this gives the Welsh Government the capacity to make some changes to the Welsh economy and to invest in order to grow and create jobs. Prior to the introduction of these new Welsh taxes, we would need to be very clear about whether the Welsh people would be better or worse off. That is our primary concern, so will the Secretary of State explain exactly how the process and methods will be agreed and set for offsetting the block grant by the amount devolved to Wales under the minor taxes?
	The most significant aspect of today’s announcement relates to income tax and the proposal that the Government will legislate for a referendum in which the Welsh people may be asked if they want a proportion of income tax to be devolved to Wales. Our position on income tax is that we support the proposal as laid out by Silk on the basis of a “triple lock”, whereby we will judge whether the people of Wales will be worse off, we will see through the referendum whether the people of Wales want to take that responsibility and we will see whether fair funding is agreed for Wales. That remains our position today.
	It is a significant that, in making today’s announcement, the Government have rejected Silk’s proposal to devolve the income tax bands independently of one another. Can the Secretary of State confirm why he has rejected that recommendation? The Government’s written statement suggests the reason is that the UK Government have discovered an interest in the progressivity of the UK tax system and are concerned that devolving those bands independently of one another might reduce that progressivity. That is ironic from a Government who
	have cut taxes for the wealthiest people in Wales. Will the right hon. Gentleman further confirm that the leader of the Welsh Conservatives in Cardiff Bay has said that he would use the tax powers only for the wealthiest by cutting only the 40% band, thus continuing the anti-progressive policies being pursued in Westminster?
	I noted from the media today that the Secretary of State, in contrast, would cut all the bands by 1%. He will know that that would result in a £200 million shortfall in the Welsh Assembly’s budget. Will he tell us exactly how he would fill that shortfall, or, alternatively, tell us which services he suggests that the Welsh Government should cut to make the tax cut affordable?
	May I ask the Secretary of State about fair funding? Last year the Government said that there was evidence of convergence in funding between Wales and England. Today’s statement commits them to
	“review relative levels of funding for Wales and England in advance of each spending review and, if convergence is forecast to resume, to discuss options to address the issue in a fair and affordable manner.”
	Will the Secretary of State tell us exactly what the result of those reviews will be? If there is evidence of convergence, will action be taken? Will we see what Paul Silk wanted, namely a review of the Barnett formula?
	Without a hint of irony, the statement provides for the Government to give Wales a facility to save any “surplus revenues” that it might have lying around. Given that the Welsh budget has been cut by £1.7 billion over the last three years, can the Secretary of State tell us when that surplus is expected to materialise? Or have we just been given another set of false promises by a Government who do not believe in the Welsh people, and will not deliver for them? Is today another day on which we should beware Tories bearing gifts?

David Jones: I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for what I think was a welcome for my announcement. However, we heard the predictable preamble about Wales having been hit harder by the Government than any other part of the United Kingdom. In fact, the grant to the Welsh Government has been reduced proportionately less than that of any other Whitehall spending Department. Given that we are living in times of extreme difficulty—caused to no small extent by the last Labour Government—I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the support that this Government have given the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly.
	The hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions, the first few of which related to when the borrowing powers would be made available. I am pleased to be able to tell him that, as was announced in my written ministerial statement, the Welsh Government have already been given assurances that they can negotiate with the Treasury for borrowing powers in respect of the M4 and the north Wales expressway to take effect immediately. We will fund that by allowing the Welsh Government’s current borrowing powers to be used without any adverse impact on the departmental expenditure limit.
	The hon. Gentleman welcomed the devolution of taxes. The two larger taxes that are being devolved are landfill tax and stamp duty land tax. That will of itself provide a funding stream against which the Welsh Assembly Government can borrow, but we want income tax to be
	devolved as well. The hon. Gentleman is right: I do support the devolution of income tax. I urge the Welsh Assembly Government to trigger the referendum as soon as they can, because the Conservative party will be campaigning vociferously for a yes vote in that referendum, and, furthermore, for a cut in income tax.
	The hon. Gentleman made a point which revealed the poverty of the Labour party’s ambition. We believe that devolution should be used to give a competitive edge to Wales, and that the powers that are devolved should be used to make Wales a more prosperous place.
	Very far from wanting the tax cuts to apply to the wealthiest people in Wales, we would like them to apply across the board, to everybody in Wales, so that the brightest and best want to come to Wales to set up business, to make their livings and to look forward to a brighter future. That is what differentiates the Labour party from the Conservative party. Interestingly, the Welsh Finance Minister, Jane Hutt, hailed today’s announcement as
	“a good deal for Wales, and a big step forward for devolution.”
	However, the Eeyore-like shadow Secretary of State prefers to look for a cloud in every silver lining. He is out of step with everybody except himself.

Cheryl Gillan: May I congratulate Paul Silk and the Silk commission on the excellent work they have done on part I? May I also heartily congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent response to this thoughtful piece of work? I am pleased that he has taken time in responding, because it is the right response. I am particularly delighted with the extension of borrowing powers. He will be familiar with the fact that the Welsh Assembly Government have always made excuses about why they could not improve the M4 and the A55. Does he agree with me that we should have a start-date for those improvements this week from the Labour Government down in Wales?

David Jones: May I, in turn, commend my right hon. Friend on the hard work she carried out in setting up the Silk commission in the first place? I would also like to repeat the thanks I gave in my response to the Silk commission’s recommendations for the hard work carried out by Paul Silk and his commission. The truth is, indeed, that responsibility for the maintenance and upgrade of those major routes always lay with the Welsh Assembly Government. They have in the past acknowledged that the cost of that was difficult to meet within their budget. We could not allow the deterioration of those major routes to continue indefinitely, and I therefore hope they will proceed swiftly with the upgrade of both those routes. I am pleased to see, however, that they are already consulting on the upgrade to the M4.

Paul Flynn: Timeo Tories et dona ferentes, as we say in Newport. Are the people of Newport and Wales right to be cautious about Tory promises, particularly in the light of the very small share Wales has had of the Olympic legacy? Although it was promised a larger share, it is on protozoan level. Can we have a guarantee from the Government that
	if the Welsh Assembly Government implement these measures, it will mean fair funding, not a continuation of underfunding?

David Jones: Well, we clearly have another representative of the Eeyore tendency in the hon. Gentleman. All I would say is that his concern is not shared by the Welsh Government who, I repeat, have said very strongly that the announcement
	“represents a good deal for Wales, and a big step forward for devolution.”

Roger Williams: I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on his statement today. We are very pleased that there is a consensus in the Welsh Assembly about the proposals. May I add that I hope that that consensus can spread to this place as well and that best advantage can be made of the proposals?

David Jones: Indeed, all parties in the Assembly have welcomed the announcement. The only exceptions appear to be the hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches. It is essential that all parties work together in order to get a referendum as quickly as possible, so that Wales can get the tax-raising powers it needs to give it a competitive edge.

Elfyn Llwyd: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for advance sight of his statement? I also congratulate all the members of the Silk commission on the very hard and conscientious work they undertook in the past 12 months or so. I think today’s statement is something we can build on; with a little ambition, we can improve the lot of the people of Wales, rather than look for problems with it. I would like to ask one or two brief questions, however. When will the UK Government set out the clear detail on borrowing limits? Will there be separate borrowing powers from those set aside for funding the M4 relief road without the partial devolving of income tax, and will the borrowing deal to fund the M4 relief road contribute towards an overall borrowing limit?

David Jones: It is indeed contemplated that further borrowing powers will be conferred on the Assembly Government, although that will depend very much on the income stream that is available to fund that. Certainly, if there were a positive vote in the referendum on income tax, there would be that much more scope. As far as the M4 is concerned, negotiations between the Treasury and the Welsh Government are already well under way to work out the detail of how those powers will be applied.

Jonathan Evans: Today is truly an historic day, and it is great to hear these announcements from a Conservative Secretary of State. Given Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ recent assessment that the average per capita tax take in Wales is 25% less than in the UK as a whole, the only appropriate movement for income tax in Wales must surely be downwards.

David Jones: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I repeat that the difference between Labour and the Conservatives is that we are ambitious for Wales, whereas Labour seems to think that Wales should be a
	supplicant nation for ever more. The best way to increase the economic success of Wales is to ensure that it has a competitive edge, and I believe, as does my hon. Friend, that that purpose will be best served by reducing the rate of tax.

David Hanson: The Secretary of State will know that many thousands of my constituents work in the City of Chester, in Eddisbury, in Manchester, in Liverpool and in Ellesmere Port. Similarly, thousands of people from all those constituencies work in my constituency in Flintshire. Has he thought through properly how the income tax-varying power might work in practice? What consultation on this matter does he intend to undertake with businesses on both sides of the border?

David Jones: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, 12 months’ thought has been put into this exercise. Over the years, Wales has grown progressively poorer compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, and I hope that he will welcome and support our giving it a competitive edge through a beneficial rate of income tax. Also, he knows that it is easy to move from one side of the border to the other. That is another reason we had to think carefully before doing anything that might unbalance the economy of that important part of the world.

Glyn Davies: I greatly welcome the work of Mr Paul Silk and his commission. I also welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement as an exciting step forward for the devolution process in Wales. If meaningful fiscal accountability is to lie with the Welsh Government, it is crucial that responsibility for a significant proportion of income tax should be devolved. Does my right hon. Friend share my hope that all the political parties in the Assembly and here in Westminster will enthusiastically support the campaign for a yes vote in the referendum?

David Jones: My reading of the situation is that the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties will certainly campaign in that way, and I imagine that Plaid Cymru will do so as well. I am not so certain about the Labour party, however, although I hope that it will be bold and ambitious for Wales.

Susan Elan Jones: I should like to press the Secretary of State on a detail that seems to have been omitted. Under the Scotland Act 2012, the Scottish Government can borrow up to 10% of their capital budget, up to a maximum stock of £2.2 billion. I believe that the relevant figure for the financial year 2014-15 will be £230 million. Will the formula be the same for the Welsh Government?

David Jones: We certainly propose to use the Scotland Act as a model, but these matters require further negotiation, and further details will emerge in due course.

David Nuttall: The Secretary of State’s statement referred to the investment of £250 million to build a new prison in north Wales. May I urge him to have urgent discussions with his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to make sure that from the moment it opens it is a completely drug-free establishment?

David Jones: I am sure that that certainly would be the intention of the Ministry of Justice.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The Secretary of State has described Opposition Members as Eeyores, so I will try to be a bit more like Tigger—a bit more optimistic—as long as he does not pooh-pooh this question. May I ask him for some more accuracy on when he expects the discussions between the Treasury and the Finance Minister in the Assembly Government to have concluded on the borrowing powers that will allow the M4 relief road to go ahead, releasing £2.1 billion into the south Wales economy?

David Jones: I am glad to see the more upbeat attitude of the hon. Gentleman. Those negotiations are continuing and, knowing both individuals involved—the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Finance Minister in the Welsh Assembly Government—I have no doubt that they have every intention of concluding them as quickly as possible.

Stephen O'Brien: I congratulate the Secretary of State and Paul Silk on this excellent work and the statement. The Secretary of State is right not to take the advice in the puny and unworthy response of the official Opposition, but I urge him to give a good answer on the following matter. Some of us have shared economic interests across the border; as has been said, many people either side of the border commute. Whether we are talking about the Wrexham industrial park in north Wales and the economic basis, or the Environment Agency and the river catchment areas, there is an absence of accountability—those living on the “wrong” side of the border in England cannot hold anybody in Wales to account for their decisions. At the moment, there is an absence of democratic legitimacy. Will he provide an answer on that point?

David Jones: My right hon. Friend raises a fair point, which has been made on many occasions. The devolution settlement, as currently constituted, does lead in some cases to a democratic deficit. These matters were raised on several occasions with the previous Labour Government. At the moment, my right hon. Friend is best served by finding a friendly Assembly Member who will raise the issues that are of concern to his constituents but which relate to matters on the Welsh side of the border. On the basis of the current devolution settlement, that is the best answer I can give.

Chris Evans: The Secretary of State says in his statement that the National Assembly for Wales will be allowed to create new taxes with the consent of the UK’s Government. How does he envisage that process developing? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer, rather than the Welsh Assembly, be deciding the tax regime in Wales?

David Jones: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would understand that any new taxes would need to be constituted in such a way as not to unbalance the national economy, but the response that has been given to the Silk report makes it clear that, subject to that consent, the Assembly Government will be in a position to create new taxes.

Stephen Mosley: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in the Chester area the Anglo-Welsh border goes through the middle of housing estates—it goes through an urban area—and on one side of the road people are in England and on the other side people are in Wales. Significant differences in tax rates either side of the border could lead to significant strains on the local economy. What consideration has the Department given to trying to ameliorate those strains?

David Jones: I am well aware of the points my hon. Friend raises. It was for the very reason he mentions that further consultation was undertaken on the proposed devolution of stamp duty land tax; it was ultimately felt that, as a capital tax, a balance would naturally be struck. There is no doubt that were income tax to be devolved, there might be some impact overall, but in terms of the local economy I would imagine that the same people would live very close to one another, albeit on different sides of the border.

Chris Bryant: Like everybody else, I support the proposals. However, I hope that my constituents are not watching this session, because all they will be thinking about is the cost of living crisis in Wales. Hundreds of thousands of families are worrying about whether they will be able to heat or eat this winter, and yet here we are again fiddling around with the constitutional settlement. Our constituents want us to deal with the real issues that matter to them. I suggest that we get rid of the idea of having a referendum and that we spend the money instead on keeping open the Porth and Treherbert libraries.

David Jones: I am afraid that I cannot speak on behalf of the users of the Porth or the Treherbert libraries. Those are matters for the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government. None the less, those are important matters. The recommendations have been widely welcomed by all parts of the political spectrum, except of course by the hon. Gentleman.

Philip Hollobone: I have the greatest respect for the high office of state that my right hon. Friend holds and fills with such distinction. Wales has a Secretary of State and England does not. I fully support his efforts to devolve income tax rates to Wales and to create a competitive tax economy in Wales, but will he ensure that the administrative costs of the Wales Office are met entirely by Welsh taxpayers?

David Jones: We shall consider that interesting suggestion.

Jonathan Edwards: Over recent months, the Tories in the Senedd and the Liberal Democrats have pledged to alter individual tax bands should they form the next Welsh Government. Would not those specific pledges be undeliverable due to the lockstep that the Secretary of State has announced today?

David Jones: Yes.

Kevin Brennan: One solution to the problem raised by Conservative Members from constituencies near the border is to extend the Welsh border eastwards. Ludlow used to be the administrative capital of Wales—[Interruption]—as was Oswestry.

Elfyn Llwyd: And Chester.

Kevin Brennan: There are plenty of suggestions. If that is not within the powers of the Secretary of State, perhaps he could consider once again a more flexible approach to the level of bands of income tax under his proposals.

David Jones: That is a very attractive proposition. In fact, Terfyn in Cheshire derives its name from terfyn, which means a border, so perhaps that is something that we should press. However, we have given careful consideration to this matter and believe that the lockstep proposal is the best way forward.

Gregg McClymont: After listening to the Minister’s statement, the question that looms large is whether he is proposing tax competition between different parts of the United Kingdom.

David Jones: That would certainly be attractive in many parts of Wales. Of course, in Scotland, that is precisely what is available.

Hywel Williams: Will the Secretary of State elaborate a little on the case-by-case process for establishing new taxes to which he referred earlier? He and I served on the Welsh Affairs Committee. I hope that he is not proposing the ghoulish resurrection of the legislative competence order process.

David Jones: Certainly not. I would imagine that, in most cases, those would be issues for negotiation between the Welsh Finance Department and the Treasury.

Tom Greatrex: In the referendum to which the Secretary of State referred, will 16 and 17-year-olds be entitled to vote?

David Jones: That is very unlikely.

Wayne David: Wales is currently underfunded to the tune of £300 million. Why does the Secretary of State for Wales not come forward with a fair funding formula?

David Jones: The hon. Gentleman will know that in October 2012 the Welsh Finance Minister, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I announced new arrangements in Cardiff, which ensured that if there were any issue of convergence, there would be further negotiations between the Welsh Finance Department and the Treasury. [Interruption.] We believe thatBarnett certainly is coming to the end of its life. The issue is to rebalance the economy, which was left in such an appalling condition by the Government of whom he was a member.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

[Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Session 2012-13, Draft Northern Ireland(Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, HC 1003, and the Government Response, Cm 8621.]
	Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Patterns and lessons report on aspects of the past

‘(1) The Secretary of State may appoint a person or persons to prepare an analysis of findings, issues, patterns or lessons from various reports in particular events of Northern Ireland’s troubled past.
	(2) The Secretary of State may exercise this power in consultation or conjunction with another statutory body.
	(3) The reports from which an analysis or narrative might be drawn will include those by—
	(a) a body established to investigate, review and report on matters in Northern Ireland’s burdened past in terms, and with standards, which comply with Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights;
	(b) the Historical Enquiries Team;
	(c) the Police Ombudsman;
	(d) Public Inquiry;
	(e) an independent panel; or
	(f) other review mechanisms.
	(4) If the Secretary of State appoints a person or persons to prepare a narrative analysis under this section, any existing provision prohibiting publication of the material to be analysed shall, subject to subsection (5) below, not apply for the purposes of this section.
	(5) No personal information shall be included in the analysis as published without the permission of the person concerned or, if they are dead, of their relatives.
	This Clause would allow reports to be commissioned on aspects of Northern Ireland’s troubled past, drawing on findings in reports by given mechanisms which have investigated or considered particular cases or events. Those mechanisms could include any new body created with particular regard to Article 2 ECHR compliance.
	—(Mark Durkan.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Mark Durkan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss
	New clause 3—Annual report an activity relating to Northern Ireland’s past
	‘(1) The Secretary of State shall lay a report before Parliament in respect of each year as soon as possible after the end of the year to which it relates.
	(2) The Secretary of State may appoint a person or persons to produce the report required under subsection (1).
	(3) A report laid under subsection (1) shall contain in relation to the year to which it applies—
	(a) a summary of the work of any body established to investigate, review or report on matters in Northern Ireland’s burdened past in terms and with standards which comply with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights;
	(b) a summary of the work of the Historical Enquiries Team of the Northern Ireland Police;
	(c) a summary of the work of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland insofar as it relates to Northern Ireland’s past;
	(d) a summary of the work of the Independent Commission for the Location of Victim’s remains;
	(e) a summary of the work of other public bodies which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, relates to Northern Ireland’s past;
	(f) a summary of findings of any inquiry, review or panel which has reported on particular events in Northern Ireland’s past;
	(g) a summary of responses made by Her Majesty’s Government or any other Government or body to any of the work covered by the report; and
	(h) a clear indication where the findings of any work summarised in the report contradict remarks recorded in the Official Report of the House of Commons or House of Lords, especially by a Minister of the Crown.
	(4) After a report under subsection (1) has been laid before Parliament the Secretary of State shall provide a statement to Parliament which shall contain references to—
	(a) independent legal assessment of the compliance of the work covered by the report with Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights;
	(b) the progress made during the year in dealing with Northern Ireland’s past;
	(c) any apologies that have been given by any Government or public body in relation to the work summarised in the report;
	(d) any apologies that have been given by any Government or public body in the context of any other reports, revelations or admissions which relate to Northern Ireland’s past; and
	(e) any other relevant issues or concerns as they relate to Northern Ireland’s past.
	(5) Any existing provision prohibiting publication of the material to be summarised under subsection (2)(a) shall, subject to subsection (6) below, not apply for the purposes of this section.
	(6) No personal information shall be included in the report as laid before Parliament without the permission of the person concerned or, if they are dead, of their relatives.’.
	This Clause would allow for a new Article 2 compliant mechanism to investigate past events. This could replace the Historical Enquiries Team and Police Ombudsman’s respective roles on the past. It provides an annual report on all work on the past accompanied by a ministerial statement addressing certain matters.

Mark Durkan: New clauses 1 and 3 are tabled by me and my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie).
	I should explain to the House that new clause 1 expands on an amendment I tabled in Committee— in the Public Bill Committee upstairs, rather than in Committee of the whole House. The point of the new clause is to afford the House an opportunity to consider whether some of the work undertaken on the past in Northern Ireland could be consolidated and could have its value advertised and added to by creating the capacity for the Secretary of State to commission a report or reports by a person or persons on various groups or classes of cases, on events in a particular locality or period, or on the activities of a particularly paramilitary group within a particular period of time.
	We are suggesting that a class report, based on other reports and findings that have already been produced—whether by the Historical Enquiries Team, established
	inquiries or independent panels, or even by reviews that might be established in the future—would be necessary because at the minute we have a fairly inadequate arrangement whereby if the HET reports on a case the report is given to the family concerned and treated as though it is the property of the family. It is published only if the family chooses to publish it and only in the manner the family chooses.
	When there have been issues with some of the HET’s work, not least when it has investigated what have been called “Army deaths”, that situation has meant that although the HET has done some good work over a number of years, which has been valuable to the families, many families have not felt that they could discharge the burden of publishing the work. Of course, other families have been able to publish that work or to turn to the assistance of others to have it published. In recent times, a powerful compilation examining different HET reports has been produced by the Pat Finucane Centre, resulting in a book called “Lethal Allies.” It draws on the HET reports on a number of cases, on Ministry of Defence files and on other papers in the national archive to set out more of the circumstances behind a certain group of murders—the up to 120 murders conducted by the Glenanne gang. That powerful book has been able to draw on HET reports simply because those families gave the reports to the Pat Finucane Centre and entrusted it with that work. That points towards a wider gap in the provisions on the past, not least those that the Secretary of State would preside over in the public interest and in the name of the wider political process.

Lady Hermon: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have enormous regard, in full flow, but is he speaking on behalf of a small group of families whose loved ones’ murder the HET has investigated, or is he speaking on behalf of the majority of those families, they having asked him to make this change?

Mark Durkan: In no way could I claim to be speaking for a majority of all the families whose cases have been investigated by the HET, but I have met many of the families, and I appreciate the very different experiences that they report to me. Some families are unhappy about how the HET investigated their case, and what it was able, or not able, to find; other people were particularly satisfied, and have taken consolation and a sense of closure from what the HET has been able to do for them. The point is that many families feel that there may be an unequal process in relation to the past, and they are coming at that from different points of view and experiences. The new clause tries to ensure that our approach to the past, not least in terms of the HET, is more holistic.
	The Historical Enquiries Team has been seriously compromised by a report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary that found that the HET’s conduct of investigations of what are called “Army deaths” was so unequal and off-standard as to be illegal. That has put a serious question mark over the future of the HET’s discharging of its investigative role. Many of us believe that there is a need to replace the HET with a new body that is clearly compliant with article 2 of the European convention on human rights, and that if such a new body
	were created, the role relating to historical investigations that attaches to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland could devolve to that new body; we see the possibility of that article 2 compliant body taking over both the HET’s role in investigating the past, and the police ombudsman’s role in investigating complaints about past police conduct. Whether or not that new body is created, there needs to be an ability to draw on the good work already done by the HET in a lot of cases—work that currently is not celebrated, or shared in a meaningful way with the wider public.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate to the House whether the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Matt Baggott, has in recent weeks made it evident that he has any intention of replacing the HET and has lost confidence in it? That certainly was not the information that he gave to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs two or three weeks ago.

Mark Durkan: I am not speaking for the Chief Constable; I am speaking to the new clause. I have said that many of us believe that the HET has been seriously injured, and that the viability of it serving its purpose in future, and its reliability, have been fundamentally wounded. I know that many people on the Northern Ireland Policing Board have that view as well. As to whether the Chief Constable has come to that view, we will have to see. The new clause does not legislate for a new body; it simply allows us to ensure that if a new body were created, that would not negate good work already done by the HET, and good work done, and sound reports produced, by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.
	The new clause would ensure that reports can be commissioned not just on individual cases and events, but on evident lessons or patterns in findings relating to different cases and events. Anne Cadwallader, on behalf of the Pat Finucane Centre, has been able to bring out glaring and compelling points relating to the Glenanne gang and its work: the connections between many different killings; the repeated use of various weapons; the likely involvement of some people; and issues of collusion and complicity in all that. That approach should be available for other cases, too. It is not just about being able to tell that narrative about the activities of loyalist paramilitaries; there are compelling narratives that need to be told about the activities of Republican paramilitaries as well.

Naomi Long: The new clause has been tabled while talks are under way with Haass and so on, and there is a process that deals with issues from the past. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the new clause puts the cart before the horse, or does he think that it complies with that general process?

Mark Durkan: I believe that it is entirely compatible with the Haass process. I have no wish to pre-empt—and I would not ask the House to vote to pre-empt—what may or may not come of the Haass process. However, the House has responsibility in relation to the past, as it was the main chamber of accountability for many years in relation to Northern Ireland’s troubled past. It is not enough for us to say that we do not want to address the
	past as we consider the Bill because the Haass process will do that. It is right and proper for parties in Westminster and the Chamber to reflect on some aspects of the past.
	The new clause tries to say, first, that it is not the case that nothing has been done in relation to the past. However, it is clear that not enough has been done, and that not enough has been done with some of the good work that has been done on the past, not least some of the good work by the HET. Although I accept many of the criticisms of the HET, I cannot ignore the fact that I have heard directly from families who have been helped by what the HET has been able to do in their case. I believe, however, that the wider process and the wider community could be helped if we drew together some of the lessons and compelling findings that the HET has been able to share with families. Not all of those findings have been shared with the wider public, and not all of them have been shared equally.

Nigel Dodds: Before the hon. Gentleman responded to the intervention from the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), he was speaking about the need for a complete record that involved a spotlight not just on one set of paramilitaries but on all of them. How will his proposal ensure that an analysis or narrative drawing on the various reports that have been cited gives a complete picture of the many hundreds of deaths in which the Provisional IRA and other paramilitary groups were involved? How will we get the right proportion in the overall picture, and a proper investigation or analysis of the role, for instance, of Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein’s current leaders in the disappearance of Jean McConville and others? How is all of that included on the basis of the list of reports that he cited?

Mark Durkan: First, the new clause does not seek to introduce an omnibus report in relation to all the events of Northern Ireland’s burdened past. It is not one received version that looks at all the tragedies and atrocities in Northern Ireland’s troubled history. The new clause would create the ability or capacity for the Secretary of State to commission reports on different classes, groups or possible groups of crimes. Just as many people have found the book, “Lethal Allies”, a compelling drawing together of a number of different reports, plus other evidence relating to the work of a network of loyalist activity over a period of six years, so there could well be room to say that we need a report that draws together HET and any other findings on the work of the IRA in a given area or over a given period, or of the Irish National Liberation Army, or of loyalist paramilitaries in other areas, so that people who were victims know that their experiences were not isolated cases in which they were victimised and bereaved but were part of a network or pattern at a particular time. That narrative should be brought out and should be available to people.

William McCrea: Is there not a confusion in what the hon. Gentleman has presented to the House? On the one hand, he tells us that there is a report about the HET and its fairness and ability to investigate collusion and so on which puts a question mark over it. On the other hand, he brings out the virtues of the HET, which somehow aids a “powerful” book, so-called, whenever it comes to security force collusion.

Mark Durkan: The HET has done some good work, but it has also done some work of very questionable quality. No less an authority than Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has found the HET’s work wanting in relation to the investigation of Army deaths, how they were investigated and how witnesses and potential witnesses were treated in that situation. It was a damning indictment by HMIC that the HET’s standard of performance in relation to a certain class of cases was illegal. That is not my finding, but accepting and recognising it and its seriousness does not lead me to rubbish cases in which the HET has done some good work and been able to marshal firm evidence that was of significance to families—evidence that was not shared with those families by anybody except the HET before now.

William McCrea: But how can we be sure that the reports that the hon. Gentleman says are virtuous actually are so?

Mark Durkan: First of all, I am not creating a class of good HET reports or bad HET reports. I am not saying that the Secretary of State must commission reports in relation to every single death on the basis of HET reports. My aim is to make good a deficiency in the work of the HET to date: its work counts solely as the private property of families, unless the families themselves choose to publish it. There is no formality in this House, for instance, whereby the Government may make an apology to a family on the back of an HET report. The Government up till now have treated that apology as a private matter, not a matter for the parliamentary record. An apology was duly given by the Ministry of Defence after a family had shared with it an HET report, but we had to go to the bother of an Adjournment debate, which I called, to get that apology voiced on the record. That shows that there is a problem in how HET reports are treated.
	This is not just a point that we in the SDLP have come up with. Others have addressed it as well. There are victims groups who say that this is one of the deficiencies in relation to the HET. There is a question mark not only over the quality of the HET’s work, but over what the rest of us are doing with the HET’s work and whether the rest of us are interested in it. In the Haass talks the parties are meant to be addressing what is to be done about the past and what is being done, and it is important to acknowledge that some good work that has been done may not have been valued enough and is not well enough advertised or circulated. The measure is an attempt to improve that.

David Simpson: When we talk about a level playing field with other parties, and all parties being included in the collusion issue, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be a further investigation into the Garda Siochana and the allegations made about collusion there? We talk about apologies. Is it not time that we got a proper apology from the Irish Government and their part in the troubles many years ago?

Mark Durkan: I have no resistance to any inquiries about any allegations of collusion that there might be against Garda Siochana or anybody else. In relation to the point that is often made by the DUP about the possible involvement of members of the Irish Government in arming the Provisional IRA initially, I have no problem
	with an investigation of that or anything else. I point out that members of the Irish Government were sacked at the time and former Ministers stood trial alongside others, so it is not as though the issue passed without moment at the time.
	The Berry papers brought those issues out again, in much the same way as the Pat Finucane Centre was able to find in the national archives in Kew many documents that provide a strong back-light on the murderous machinations of the Glenanne gang. In Irish Government records, including the Berry papers, which were perused by significant elements of the media some years ago, there is also significant back-lighting of what happened in and around the arms trial.
	I want to return to the point of new clause 1, which is not to prescribe that there shall be one sweeping narrative in relation to all issues in the past, or to refuse any, but to say that where there have been various investigations or reports, whether by a public inquiry, the HET, the police ombudsman, or any other investigative means—the Ballymurphy families, for example, are talking about having something like the Hillsborough independent panel look at their case—if there were common strands to be brought out in relation to different cases, the Secretary of State could commission a report that would do that.

Naomi Long: I understand the merit in the proposal, but is the HET, for example, the right basis for the kind of reports that the hon. Gentleman seeks? The purpose of the investigation, for example of the HET, is to look at the matter with a view to the prosecution of those guilty of those offences. The understanding and the narrative that forms the backdrop to those events are not necessarily the job of the HET, but are a more complex mix. I want to probe whether the hon. Gentleman believes that those are the right bases for this kind of narrative-building report.

Mark Durkan: I believe that they potentially are. If one has been privileged to have a HET report shared with one by a family, one has only to read it to see that it may be pointing less towards any possible prosecution, than bringing out significant information about the background events and circumstances. The first time that many families found out that their loved ones were murdered by the same weapons was when they read the HET reports that dealt with murders by the Glenanne gang. No one ever told them that before. They were never told that as a result of RUC investigations or any other revelations, or comments or observations made by Ministers about the nature or network of crimes or murders. None of that information was ever shared with those families until they received it from the HET, and until the Pat Finucane Centre literally brought them together as victims of the same weapons.

Jim Shannon: I seek clarification on the issue of the HET inquires. As an elected representative during the last couple of years I have made four, perhaps five, referrals on behalf of individuals to the HET. The HET has replied, but they are confidential, private, individual issues. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that they should be made known to everyone, even though the families themselves want them kept secret?

Mark Durkan: I refer the hon. Gentleman to subsection (5):
	“No personal information shall be included in the analysis as published without the permission of the person concerned or, if they are dead, of their relatives.”
	One of the issues at the moment with the HET—too much of this debate is focusing purely on the HET—is that it is limited in that it cannot make its reports public. Many of us assumed that that was a statutory restriction on the HET, but it turns out that it is not. The clause allows germane facts that can point to the wider pattern and help to fill in the wider narrative in relation to forces, whether paramilitary or anybody else, who carried out murders and series of crimes. Where that wider narrative is brought out it would not be at the expense of publishing any information that is in the HET report that has previously been regarded as private, for whatever reason of sensitivity. But the wider narrative lesson should be able to be drawn out by a wider report.
	Again, I make the point that there has been a significant response to the book “Lethal Allies”, including in Armagh and Tyrone. The Glenanne gang carried out its nefarious sectarian murder campaign against innocent Catholics. Remember that only one of the 120 whom it killed had any link whatever with the provisional republican movement. The people whom it killed were members of my party, the SDLP, people who were in the Gaelic Athletic Association, people who had bought property who were setting up in business. That is why they were targeted. Those who were specifically targeted and shot in their workplace or in their homes, as opposed to those who were more randomly killed by bombs, were all people of the ilk that I have described.
	It was not only those forces that were involved in a sectarian campaign in Tyrone and Armagh and other places; so too, I believe, were the IRA and many others. That is the belief of many of the IRA’s victims in those places in those years.

William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because we are moving into a very sensitive area. There seems to be a hierarchy of victims. Will he tell me why Robert McLernon, at 16 years of age, and Rachel McLernon, at 21 years of age, on the day she was engaged to be married, were targeted by the IRA? Should we not know that? Who is going to tell us that?

Mark Durkan: I absolutely believe that, in so far as anybody can tell us, we should know that. If there is ever an HET report that could tell us that, we should be told, rather than someone saying, “Oh no, it’s an HET report, so it’s the private property of the family.” The onus should not be entirely upon the family to make good that report.
	The HET produced a very significant report on the Kingsmill massacre, but I do not believe that it received as much attention as it deserved. Its import was not fully registered in this House, or indeed in other places, and I believe that it should have been. Of course, the Kingsmill massacre is not the only evidence that discounts the cosy claim that has been made in the past for the IRA, and is still made to date, even on behalf of Sinn Fein, that there was nothing sectarian about the IRA campaign and that only loyalist paramilitaries carried out campaigns with an eye to a sectarian agenda. That
	is quite clear from a number of events, and not only those carried out by the IRA, but arguably those carried out by other republican paramilitaries at the time, when it was or was not the IRA, or when another flag of convenience was being flown, for example in the Darkley massacre.
	I do not believe that it is only in relation to the murders of the Glenanne gang that we could benefit from a clear account based on sound findings from other inquiries. Remember that the power that new clause 1 would give the Secretary of State is to commission a report that draws on the findings of other bodies, not to set up a new investigative mechanism or some new roving or roaming inquiry into everything and anything. It would take the value and significance of what has already been found by other competent inquiries and investigations, so it would take what is already there in reports and marshal it together to draw value, and not just for the victims, but for wider society. I hope that idea will commend itself to the parties as they consider these and other issues in the Haass talks.

Nigel Dodds: Apart from the reports of the HET, which we have spent a lot of time on, the hon. Gentleman has mentioned reports from other bodies, such as the police ombudsman and public inquiries. Subsection (3)(f) of new clause 1 refers to “other review mechanisms.” Will he explain what that phrase means?

Mark Durkan: That is to do with the fact that we cannot pre-empt what other review mechanisms might come out of the Haass talks. Other review mechanisms could cover a variant of something like the de Silva report, in which people basically examine what is on the record in various archives. Of course, those archives need not be just in the UK, because, as we heard earlier in relation to the southern Irish dimension, there could be significant records in the south. There are also different forms and models of inquiries available in the south. Some of those inquiries that have looked at some of these issues might have relevant findings that could be drawn into a wider report that the Secretary of State might commission others to do.
	We have left it very open as to who might be commissioned to do those reports. The Secretary of State will not necessarily appoint civil servants. The Secretary of State might appoint other competent and credible people, be they academics or those from other groups, or indeed groups who have worked with victims and would be very trusted to draw together the narrative from certain reports in ways that would be seen to bring out the salient truth, and not only for the victims, but for the wider community and future generations.
	New clause 3 provides for the idea that in future the Secretary of State could present an annual report to Parliament that summarises all the ongoing work by various bodies in relation to the complaints about the past during that year, whether those bodies are the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, the HET, if we still have it, or the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims Remains. It also relates to whether, as I believe, there should be a new article 2-compliant mechanism to investigate the past. Other bodies may undertake work that touches on facts of the past. Of course, those bodies could be outside the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland.

Lady Hermon: In the new clause, the hon. Gentleman refers to the Historical Enquiries Team, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and various other inquiries and inquests. Will he kindly take this opportunity to put on the record his genuine appreciation of all the retired police officers, members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and members of the armed services who, time beyond number, have willingly and freely given up their time to co-operate with the police ombudsman, the HET and various other inquiries and inquests?

Mark Durkan: I have no problem acknowledging where there has been very good and sound co-operation with the HET and with the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. However, both have put it on record that they have not universally found that co-operation on the part of every single person they have sought to interview.
	I further note that the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association recently issued its own qualifications in relation to its future co-operation with the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, regarding the latter’s report on a murder that happened in my constituency in the late 1980s. I question the terms in which the retired police officers have voiced their position. Indeed, the statement the association has issued adds to the questions about that event and the background to that murder. Two innocent civilians were allowed to die when, after 10 o’clock mass, they went to inquire after a neighbour they had not seen for some time, so there were questions about whether he was at his flat. When they did so, purely out of their good nature, they became the victims of a booby-trap bomb that was in the block of flats, having been planted by the IRA, who are absolutely the culprits in this—let nobody else say anything different. It is clear from the police ombudsman’s report that the police—the security forces—were aware that the bomb was there. They made sure they did not go near it, but it was left and civilians died. I regret that the retired police officers have chosen this particular report on which to voice a strangely couched position in relation to the police ombudsman.

Nigel Dodds: Here and now is not the place or the time to open a debate on the particular event that the hon. Gentleman refers to, although he has gone into a bit of detail on it. I merely point out that the retired police officers would say that one side of the story is told but theirs is not always told in the same depth or to the same extent in the circumstances of the time. Does he agree that retired police officers who served in the RUC are in a uniquely invidious position, because unlike others they do not have all the legal back-up and wherewithal to support them, and many of them are getting on in age, yet an onerous task has been put on them with all these inquiries and so on? These issues need to be recognised.

Mark Durkan: The right hon. Gentleman makes a point that gives rise to questions as to what other support should be available as a way of assuring people when they are co-operating with inquiries. Perhaps that would also encourage more people to co-operate in future, given that we have experience of times past when some did not, and we now have a signal that fewer would in future.
	New clause 3 provides for whatever work goes on in the future in relation to the past; it is not prescribing what work should go on. It states that, whatever different channels are used to review and report on the past, it would be right and proper for this House, year on year, to receive an annual report that reflects the work that has gone on and for that report to be accompanied by a statement by the Secretary of State that refers to whether there is independent legal advice to show that all that work is compliant with article 2 of the European convention on human rights and addresses other salient matters.

Ian Paisley Jnr: While I understand the merit of what the hon. Gentleman is proposing, is there not a huge danger of such a process creating a free-for-all for lawyers, with ultimately only lawyers benefiting from it?

Mark Durkan: No, there would be no free-for-all for lawyers in my proposal, because it would not add any new form of investigation relating to the past. The new clause basically says that whatever different strands are dealing with complaints about the past, whether it be the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims Remains, the HET or any successor body, the police ombudsman, or any other inquiries or panels—and whatever their work is—this House would receive an annual report showing what had been done in that year. It would also address article 2 compliance, because that is a serious issue that has arisen in relation to the HET, and other matters.
	One issue the annual report could address is whether the reports of that year show new findings and put new light on events that were previously the subject of very different accounts in Parliament. We know that Ministers reported very differently to Parliament about a lot of these events, compared with the evidence now available from HET reports and Government papers that have emerged from the archives, thanks to the work of the Pat Finucane Centre and others. The annual report, with the statement from the Secretary of State, could be a parliamentary point of record for any apologies that have been issued by anybody in Government, and not only the British Government. Any apology by any public body or any Government in respect of findings or reports would be recorded, rather than being left as though it is just a matter of private correspondence between a victim’s family and a Government Department, which is the Government’s current position. The Government say that if they issue an apology on the back of something in an HET report or anything else, they do not see it as being up to them to record it or to acknowledge it in Parliament in any way. If the Government are iffy about doing that in every single instance, an annual report that reflected on work on the past and responses to it would provide a way for them to do it.
	It would be very important for this House, as its encouragement to the parties in the Haass talks, to say, “Yes, we know that on the issue of the past there is a huge responsibility on the parties to come to an agreement and an understanding on how better to deal with it. More honestly addressing the serious events of Northern Ireland’s past is not the job of the Northern Ireland parties alone; there is a serious and particular role for
	the British Government and for this House, which held Northern Ireland under direct rule for so many years and heard so many accounts and versions of events that may now have to be addressed differently in the light of what reports find.”

Lady Hermon: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that what he is proposing smacks entirely of a one-sided report, account and interpretation of the past? The vast majority of murders throughout the 30 years of mayhem in Northern Ireland were committed by the IRA. Who, exactly, is going to stand in this House and apologise for the murder by the IRA of innocent victims in their hundreds?

Mark Durkan: Unfortunately, I do not know who will do that. If families have received apologies from the British Government or the Ministry of Defence, there is no reason why they should not be recorded in this House. Remember, many people lost loved ones and saw those deaths misreported and mis-accounted for in this House and in other places, and that is one reason why we need to reflect that. If apologies have been given in response to any reports on or inquiries into the past—whether the HET, the ombudsman or any of the other channels provided for on a non-pre-emptive basis in the new clause—there is no reason why they should not be properly recorded.
	That would add to the indictment of the IRA, which has either not apologised or has offered mealy-mouthed, generic apologies. Those who speak to those apologies on behalf of the IRA still try to have the rest of us receive them under the pretence that the IRA campaign was somehow a clean campaign compared with the loyalist death squads, or under the pretence that the IRA only targeted people in uniform in the heat of battle or direct confrontation. The IRA killed many people by murdering them down lonely lanes, by shooting them in the back, by shooting them as they came out of their workplace and by shooting them as they came from their place of worship. It would then say that there was nothing sectarian in its campaign. Apparently, the loyalist campaign and collusion by members of the security forces was sectarian, but the IRA campaign was meant to be clean and sectarian-free. We know, and not just from IRA victims, that that is simply not so, and we need to have that spelled out in wider narrative accounts. New clause 3 aims to ensure that that can happen, and that we are not denied the means to draw together that wider narrative based on other reports that might emerge in relation to investigations of particular cases or events.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way so often. He will be aware of the phrase, “Victors write history.” Is he not in danger of handing the historiography of the troubles to a group that he would not even agree with?

Mark Durkan: No. The new clause is aimed precisely at preventing that. In the absence of anything wider, people are getting away with their own gable wall histories. They are getting away with their own pretences about the nefarious character of violence during the troubles being attached to one side and not the other. Equally, we still sometimes get the nonsense from some spokes- persons within sections of Unionism that the loyalist
	campaign existed only as a response to republican violence, and that it needs to be understood in that context. As far as I am concerned, all the violence was wrong. None of it could be justified, and none of it could be justified by the violence or excesses of anybody else. What the IRA did, did not justify what the loyalists did. What the loyalists or security forces did, did not justify what the IRA did either.
	It is important that we are able to bring those sorts of narratives out. If reports are available from the various mechanisms to deal with the past, they should be sourced and reported on in the way I talked about—on a class basis, which can straddle a number of years and localities, as under new clause 1—or through future annual reports to this House. Such reports would provide an assurance that the past is being dealt with by due standards and is receiving a due response from those in Government and in other public bodies who should be responding to it. I make no pretence to claim that either of the new clauses would directly burden paramilitary organisations with compliance with giving evidence or the truth. However, the new clauses would be a lot better at addressing the truth and being open to all dimensions of Northern Ireland’s difficult past than some other partial proposals.
	I remind hon. Members that back in 2005, this House saw what was probably the worst piece of proposed legislation: the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. It attempted to set up an entirely secret tribunal whereby people could go in, unbeknownst to the relevant victims, and claim complete indemnity and immunity from anything in the past. Not only would the issuing of certificates have been secret; the then Government proposed a clause through which an added seal of secrecy could have been imposed by the Secretary of State. The only person who could have gone to prison in connection with any crime committed in the past would have been a relative or a reporter who reported or alleged that somebody had benefited from a certificate relating to their particular victimisation. Potentially, only the victims, or people who were reporting in sympathy with the victims, could have ended up in jail—not anybody else.
	I do not pretend that the two new clauses are perfect, and nor are they complete. I do not want to pre-empt what might come out of the Haass process, but they are offered as honest contributions, recognising that more could be done with what is already being done in relation to the past. Whatever happens with Haass, this House has a continuing responsibility to address the past and to acknowledge its responsibilities during that past.

Nigel Dodds: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). New clause 1 is new in the sense that it is a proposal that has come before us at relatively late notice. I am not being unkind to the hon. Gentleman—he tabled the new clauses properly in the context of the Bill—but this proposal has not received much consultation or discussion, or indeed any elucidation heretofore in any forum of which I am aware. It is certainly worthy of consideration and debate, but I am not sure whether we want to take it on board and include it in the Bill today.

Mark Durkan: I should remind the right hon. Gentleman that in Committee I proposed a shorter version of new clause 1 that focused entirely on the HET. By sheer
	coincidence, it rhymed with a significant article in the
	Belfast Telegraph
	that week, which pointed out that nothing joins up the work of the HET in individual cases and that something needed to do so.

Nigel Dodds: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining that, and I understand that. It is indicative that this came to him only relatively recently and prompted him to table the new clause. There are a lot of ideas out there, many conflicting, in relation to the past. There are many good ideas coming from many different sources, which is one reason the Haass process is important—he will be taking all of them on board. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will put forward this idea as part of that process. It would be somewhat at odds with the Haass process if we were to pass new clause 1 and new clause 3, because it would seem that the House was legislating in advance of any agreement or full-scale negotiations. It is another contribution and the proper way forward might be to feed it into the Haass process and to seek other people’s views on it. I am not sure whether it is right to push it today in the House.

Naomi Long: I see this as a constructive proposal, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is the potential for it to become another partial solution that addresses part of the past, and is therefore not the comprehensive solution we seek?

Nigel Dodds: I will deal with the point about partiality and a holistic approach in a moment, but I want to make some points about new clause 1, having had a reasonably cursory look at the details and having listened to the hon. Member for Foyle.
	On the proposal for the Secretary of State to
	“appoint a person or persons to prepare an analysis of findings, issues, patterns or lessons”,
	it seems to me that one man’s analysis is another man’s prejudiced point of view that comes with political baggage. I can see all sorts of difficulties in finding someone or some people who would be acceptable right across the board, whom everybody would say was fair, and whom people would trust enough to permit them to do the analysis and be broadly content with whatever they came up with. I think that is a recipe for further contention and arguments about the past. Even very detailed judicial and other investigations over many years, costing lots of money, have not drawn a line under anything for the relatives, and certainly have not done so for the public. One wonders how far the proposal would take us and what its purpose is, because it might provoke more hurt on behalf of others, or more contention, strife and difficulties.
	My other point, which has just been mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), is about the problem of partiality. I asked the hon. Member for Foyle about the list of reports from which an analysis or a narrative might be drawn, and he kindly said that the “other new mechanisms” under subsection (3)(f) of new clause 1 might include what comes out of Haass, a de Silva-type review of archives or investigations in other jurisdictions. However, if those are added to reports from the other bodies mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e), we would have a list of official investigations that will inevitably and invariably result—this is one problem of current investigations into the past—in a
	preponderance of evidence coming out, issues arising or events being investigated that involve members of the security forces. That is because members of the security forces and the authorities keep records, which are the means through which such matters can be investigated.
	In that list of reports, I fail to see any real analysis or narrative that would include any great in-depth investigation of any paramilitary murders, whether loyalist or republican. That is just the reality of all reports that we have seen up to now. It is one reason we hear reasonable people on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland say time and again, and I have a lot of sympathy with the view: “All this concentration on the past is one-sided and is designed to rewrite history, because all we see is a massive concentration on the 10% of deaths”—every death is regrettable, so I make no issue about the sorrow of the relatives of those killed—“in which members of the security forces were involved.”
	That fact has to be remembered. I want to put on the record the fact that 3,530 deaths are attributable to the troubles, euphemistically called, that Northern Ireland went through. Even to state that figure brings home to us the terrible tragedy and devastation inflicted on Northern Ireland over the years: more than 3,500 deaths, with many hundreds of deaths in some years. Some 297 of those deaths involved the Army and low hundreds involved members of the police, but more than 1,700 were the responsibility of the Provisional IRA. We do not, however, see a proportional concentration by the press and the media or by investigations and anything else into that category of deaths. There were also 500, 600 or 700 deaths at the hands of loyalist paramilitaries, which is equally abhorrent and wrong. The vast majority of deaths in Northern Ireland were the responsibility of illegal paramilitary organisations. Where is the balance in the hon. Gentleman’s proposal, and where will the concentration be that can lead to closure for people who have suffered from the deaths that occurred at the hands of the Provisional IRA and others?

Jim Shannon: There are many such examples in Northern Ireland, but a prime one would be in Castlederg. For the people of Castlederg, a good example is that 28 out of the 29 murders are unsolved murders by the Provisional IRA.

Nigel Dodds: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Castlederg was very much in the news this summer. We all need to be very sensitive in dealing with the past, but a party whose Members do not take their seats in this House, Sinn Fein, organised a celebratory parade through Castlederg, at which the speaker was Gerry Kelly, a leading Sinn Fein Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That was seen as deeply hurtful by relatives who lost loved ones in Castlederg.
	Yet we are lectured about the need to move forward. We do need to move forward in Northern Ireland, but everybody needs to move forward. Republicans and Sinn Fein—and, indeed, loyalists—cannot have it both ways: they cannot say that they are willing to move forward, but then eulogise the terrorist activities in which they engaged in the past. They cannot make a false distinction between the sordid activities of so-called
	dissidents today, which they say are intolerable and unacceptable, and exactly the same behaviour 30, 20 or 10 years ago, which they say was perfectly acceptable because it was by the Provisional IRA. It was all unacceptable and totally needless: it was all about inflicting pain and suffering on innocent people.
	I understand what the hon. Member for Foyle is seeking to do through new clause 3, but I have concerns about the overall impression left by laying reports before Parliament. Paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (4) mention
	“apologies that have been given by any Government or public body”.
	The only reference to apologies is therefore in relation to Governments or public bodies. I understand what the hon. Gentleman has said, but that points up the difficulty here, because the clear impression that would go out is that nobody is laying reports of apologies for the 1,700 deaths by the Provisional IRA and the hundreds by loyalist paramilitaries. They would not get the same kind of attention or concentration. That issue is very live and raw in Northern Ireland today, and it needs to be addressed.
	The proposals therefore have some merits in some respects, but they are flawed for the reasons that I have set out. They should be fed into the Haass process, but the House should not take them forward tonight.

Margaret Ritchie: I rise to make a short contribution in support of the new clauses tabled by me and my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell).
	We want to bring some clarity to the issue of victims and the past. There are various issues that relate to the troubles, as they are euphemistically called, which took place over 30-odd years in Northern Ireland and during which many people right across the community lost their lives. The SDLP wants to underscore the fact that murder was wrong and that those who perpetrated it were wrong to do so and were culpable in doing so. There are issues with the past that relate to victims, flags and emblems. All those matters are rightly being addressed by Richard Haass in the current talks process, which is due to be completed by the end of December. We look forward to those findings.
	It is opportune that my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle has tabled the new clauses and particularly new clause 1, which relates to patterns and lessons from reports on aspects of the past. One of the critical cases happened in my constituency. I do not highlight it because six men were murdered by loyalists, but simply to illustrate a point. A police inquiry was carried out by the RUC in which the families were not really involved. They were never really asked for their opinions or asked about what happened on that night. They were always searching for the truth. There was a police ombudsman’s report into the police investigation. Both were found wanting. The police ombudsman’s report was contested because what it suggested was tantamount to collusion, but it did not say that.
	That report required there to be a further police investigation, which is still ongoing. The police are fact checking what they have put in their voluminous report. The senior police officers who have undertaken the investigation have told me that forensics show
	that some of the weapons that were used on the night of 18 June 1994 were used in other incidents in which people were killed at around the same time, which was a couple of months before both ceasefires were announced. They cannot provide their comprehensive report into Loughinisland because it relates directly to other deaths, murders, bombings and incidents.

Naomi Long: The hon. Lady touches on a point that I had intended to raise with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). At the end of an Historical Enquiries Team review of a case, it is not necessarily a closed case, but could still be an open case in which new information could lead to prosecution. Is there a risk that publishing detailed reports that imply patterns could prejudice the outcome of future prosecutions? Would that not have to be carefully managed?

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I do not necessarily disagree with her, but I will proceed with the point I am making.
	Senior police officers have highlighted the fact that various weapons that were used in the Loughinisland incident were probably used in other incidents. That has precipitated further analysis and fact checking to establish who or what group may have perpetrated that dastardly crime. I am sure that there are patterns of activity in other incidents throughout the 35 years.

Bob Stewart: Am I right that the hon. Lady suggested that in 1994, the Royal Ulster Constabulary did not discuss what had happened with the victim’s family, or did I mishear? I would be surprised if that had happened.

Margaret Ritchie: The RUC did not discuss the case adequately and left all six families, some of whom are directly related to me, feeling very unfulfilled. I think that that would be the best way of describing it. If the matter had been adequately addressed at the time and prosecutions had been forthcoming, we might not be in the place we are in now.
	To return to new clause 1, there is a clear need for the Secretary of State to
	“appoint a person or persons to prepare an analysis of findings, issues, patterns or lessons”.
	In the case that I am describing, the police have said that there are patterns and lessons. The best way to deal with such matters is for somebody to document them. I believe that that is true right across the board and right across the community. I am sure that there are many similar incidents.
	Given that the Minister was formerly at the Ministry of Defence, perhaps he could provide some elucidation on the Ministry of Defence files that have been held in Derbyshire and which the Historical Enquiries Team alleges it was not aware of until June or July of this year. The contents of those files could have been helpful in bringing prosecutions and in providing elucidation.

Andrew Robathan: I am afraid that I have no knowledge of that and that I now have no responsibility for it either.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the Minister for his helpful intervention. I have received some parliamentary answers on this issue, so it is on the record. However, I am still not satisfied because I know that those files are available. I simply want to know why they were not pursued, given that they might have been helpful in bringing prosecutions. Perhaps he could pursue that with Ministers in the MOD.
	In summary, the new clause is eminently sensible at this time. It could inform the debate.

Lady Hermon: I wonder whether the hon. Lady will take this opportunity to address a valid point that was made by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). How do she and her colleagues propose that the Secretary of State would appoint the person or persons who would prepare such an analysis? What criteria would be used? Would it be done by a man or a woman? Would the person be an international figure? Who do she and her colleagues have in mind?

Margaret Ritchie: We would be happy to provide some information on that. It could be an individual, a range of individuals or a range of bodies.
	Suffice it to say that we believe that this device is required in order to inform because patterns have emerged in various cases, such as in the weapons that were used, that suggest who might have been involved in carrying out murders. It is good to learn those lessons and to have them documented. The compendium of work by Anne Cadwallader, which was published several weeks ago, suggests that such a device is urgently required.

William McCrea: I have listened with interest to the speeches that have been made. New clause 1, which was proposed by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), states:
	“The Secretary of State may appoint a person or persons to prepare an analysis of findings, issues, patterns or lessons from various reports in particular events of Northern Ireland’s troubled past.”
	Let us be honest in saying that the past is a difficult subject. It is rightly called “Northern Ireland’s troubled past”.
	If we are to ask someone
	“to prepare an analysis of findings, issues, patterns or lessons from various reports”,
	these reports must already have been issued, but the HET reports concern only a small number of those who suffered. Why, then, should we ask someone to collate those reports and not take into account all the families? The murder of any individual is very personal and the pain very real, and the death of any loved one is as important as any on whom a report has been issued. I genuinely believe, therefore, that a collation of these reports would be skewed, given that only a small percentage of cases have been reported on.
	We and many families are searching for the truth, but how will we ever get it? It seems only to come from one side. We have the records of the Army and others, but what about the vast majority of murders committed in Northern Ireland by members of paramilitary organisations on which there are no records? What about the truth for those families? I have said it before and will say it again: we have Gerry Adams standing up and saying, “I’ve never been a member of the IRA”. We know that
	is the biggest lie. And that brings me to another point. Let us not have a selective revelation of the archives. Why should we have only the Army or MOD records? The Loughinisland and other tragedies should never have happened and deserve to be unreservedly condemned, but why should we have only those files? I can assure the House that the Army also has records on McGuinness, so why are the hon. Members for Foyle and for South Down (Ms Ritchie) not asking for the archives on Martin McGuinness or Gerry Adams? The Army has those records. I know that one of the files disappeared, but it has those records on the “Fisherman”. The files are there on these people.
	Surely we do not have to wait for the revelation of the Boston tapes; let us have the records now. If we want the Army and MOD files, let us be open and honest about all these files. My loved ones and the loved ones of other innocent victims of Northern Ireland’s troubled past equally desire truth and justice, but they cannot see those records or know who is responsible. To this day, the police have not talked to us about our loved ones. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who has left, was surprised that the police had not gone to see the families of Loughinisland, but the family of Robert and Rachel did not get many visits either telling them how their loved ones were brutally done to death one night as they travelled along the road. They were not, and never had been, members of the security forces. If we want the archives opened, therefore, let us have them completely opened, let us have the whole truth and nothing but the truth, not simply the MOD files on soldiers or other members of the security forces. I have heard it peddled so often, but I have not heard those people saying, “Let’s have the files on the likes of McGuinness. Let’s have them opened and on the table as well.” That has never been mentioned. If we really want the truth, we must have those files. If they are to be opened—if that is what is wanted—let us not cherry-pick; let us have the whole truth.
	I lived in a community where many members of the security forces were brutally murdered. I do not know about proof of collusion, but I know that the vast majority of police officers, whether in the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, and members of the Army in Northern Ireland served with distinction and great bravery in the face of a merciless foe. Let us never forget their bravery every time they donned their uniform or went out, even with their children. I think of a young banker and part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment in Magherafelt who went out one morning to get his car from the garage to take his child to school and was blown to bits. Let us not forget the sacrifice. This is the troubled past. All these archives need to be opened.

Sammy Wilson: Even with a commitment to opening up all the files, would not most of them show only what the security forces did, because there are not the files on what the terrorists did? Indeed, many of them, including the current Sinn Fein president, deny ever having been involved in terrorism?

William McCrea: I accept that many of the atrocities carried out by members of the IRA are not in the files, but there are files on McGuinness and Adams, and it is about time they were brought out, if we are to have this openness we talk about.
	The apologies, too, are selective. We have had apologies in the House, but they have been selective. Where was the Government’s apology to the people of Teebane? People might say, “Well, the Government didn’t let it happen”, but yes they did. Successive Governments of this United Kingdom allowed the Provisional IRA to carry out its atrocities. They could have stopped it on many occasions, but what did they do? They wined and dined its members and took them into the places of power, instead of bringing them to justice. If we are to have apologies, therefore, I do not want selective apologies; I want apologies to the families of La Mon, Teebane, Castlederg. I represented that constituency when those people were killed, and I would take Members to visit a little graveyard outside the town of Castlederg— 30 mph speed limit—because proportionally more members of the security forces lie there than in any other part of this United Kingdom. But who really cares? They were just members of the RUC and UDR along the border. They were just ordinary families.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a pup’s chance of getting an apology from the Provisional IRA? The MLA for Belfast North, Mr Gerry Kelly, shot a man in the face when escaping from Her Majesty’s prison Maze, but not only does he deny it, he has now authored a book in which he makes no apology and shows no shame for organising an escape from the prison. What are the chances of ever getting an apology from that type of scurrilous individual?

William McCrea: One thing about that man from north Belfast: he knows who shot that prison officer and so he should be making a revelation.
	I heard more about the Glenanne gang, but let us be quite clear. If we are going to have the record of the troubled past and if we want to appoint a person to prepare an analysis of the findings, issues, patterns and lessons from previous reports, there are an awful lot of gangs that were around in Northern Ireland, and I can assure hon. Members that they brought a lot of grief to a lot of families and homes whose lives will never, ever be put together again. We had 30 years of terrorism— 30 years of appeasement by those in authority.

Jim Shannon: I thank my hon. Friend for the impassioned speech he is making on behalf of us all inside and outside this House. He talks about the contribution of the security forces. When four UDR men were killed in Ballydugan outside Downpatrick, 12 people were brought in for questioning, yet none was made accountable for that crime. I knew three of those four men who gave their lives for the Province—as, indeed, did many others. That is an example of sacrifice and no accountability for those who committed the crime.

William McCrea: We could tell that story over and over again; all I am saying is that I do not want a partial telling of the story. When it comes to the story of the tragedy of the 30 years of trouble in Northern Ireland, I am certainly not willing to allow the provos or the Shinners to rewrite the history. I would say this to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan): remember, there is no excuse for any paramilitary act or for taking the life of another person. Let us remember that the Provisional IRA started a campaign of murder against an innocent, law-abiding people. The only sin we were guilty of was that we wanted to be British. We wanted
	to remain a part of this United Kingdom, and the only good thing—on which I will finish—is this. Thank God we won, because we are still British and the Union flag is still flying—I trust it will be brought back for every other building, as well as those on which it is flying now. Thank God they did not beat us, they did not beat the ordinary people of the Province and we are still a part of this United Kingdom.

Ivan Lewis: It is good to have this rare opportunity to debate Northern Ireland matters on the Floor of the House. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) to his role as Minister of State and wish him well on behalf of all Members. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is unable to be here, but I am sure she has important matters to deal with that require her attendance elsewhere.
	I have said that we will work in a bipartisan way with the Government where we agree. For the most part, the proposals in the Bill are common sense and consistent with devolutionary principles, which is why they have our support. Our only disappointment is that they are relatively minor matters when considering the scale of the challenges currently facing Northern Ireland, whether about the past or building a shared future.
	Before turning to specific elements of the Bill, I would like to use this first parliamentary opportunity to pay tribute to Eddie McGrady, who sadly passed away last week. He was a tireless campaigner for social justice and peace who was held in high regard by many Members in all parts of this House. Our thoughts and prayers are with Eddie McGrady’s family and friends at this difficult time.
	I would also like to take this opportunity to condemn in the strongest possible terms the petrol bomb attack on the Alliance party office in east Belfast over the weekend.

William McCrea: I had the privilege of serving with Eddie McGrady in this House and I concur wholeheartedly with that tribute. Indeed, I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to him as a gentleman of integrity and distinction.

Ivan Lewis: That is very generous of the hon. Gentleman. Eddie McGrady earned tremendous respect, not only in all parts of this House, but across the divides in Northern Ireland. He genuinely believed in peace and condemned the use of violence at every opportunity. Perhaps most of all, he will be remembered for being a great fighter for social justice and fairness.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) for their tributes. As the successor to Mr McGrady in South Down, I thank them both for their kind remarks, which I will pass on to all our colleagues but most of all to his family, who are grieving. My predecessor was a person of certain distinction and certain political intellect, and somebody whose political representation stretched right across the community.

Ivan Lewis: I agree with the hon. Lady. I know from my attendance at the SDLP conference only a couple of weeks ago of the high affection and respect in which
	Eddie McGrady was held by the party, too. He will be a great loss to all who knew him.

Lady Hermon: I would not like this opportunity to pass without saying that when I was first elected in 2001, I was then an Ulster Unionist, and Eddie McGrady was a marvellous friend. At the end of a lengthy debate, he and his then colleague Seamus Mallon—both brilliant parliamentarians and very fine gentlemen indeed—would often ask me to join them for supper. It was a spontaneous act of kindness, which was the mark of the man. At Eddie McGrady’s requiem mass in Downpatrick on Thursday, there really was standing room only, which was a tribute from right across the board and the political spectrum in Northern Ireland. We wanted to pay tribute, because rarely do we see that kind of parliamentarian and politician in Northern Ireland. He was of the old school and a gentleman in every sense.

Ivan Lewis: I hope that the sincere words that have been uttered in all parts of the House will be some comfort to Eddie McGrady’s family and friends at this difficult time. Indeed, perhaps we can ensure that those words are relayed to them from this House.
	If I may make some progress, let me again condemn in the strongest possible terms the petrol bomb attack on the Alliance party office in east Belfast over the weekend. All Members of this House will want to express their support and concern for the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), the Alliance MLAs and their staff. A first principle of any democracy is that elected representatives should be able to speak and vote free of intimidation or the fear of violence. That is why, irrespective of political differences, we should take every opportunity to express our solidarity with the hon. Lady, who frankly has suffered intolerable attacks in recent times. It is not good enough for politicians, either in Westminster or Stormont, to remain silent in the face of such an affront to democracy. They should turn up the volume in making it clear that such intimidation and violence are entirely unacceptable and can never be justified. It is also essential that the Police Service of Northern Ireland continues to do all in its power to prevent such attacks and bring those responsible to justice.

Naomi Long: I thank the hon. Gentleman and, in her absence, the Secretary of State for contacting me over the weekend about the events that took place, as well as the Deputy Prime Minister for phoning today. I pay tribute to the police officers who attended the scene on the evening. Without their swift response and the actions they took, the situation could have been much more serious. As it is, the damage to the property was rather minimal. However, nothing that happens at that office will deflect me from doing the job that I was elected to do here on behalf of the people of my constituency.

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Lady’s courage is truly inspirational. She speaks up without fear or favour. Whether Members agree with her or not, the fact that she shows that courage should be an inspiration to all of us who have the privilege of participating in the political process.
	Over the past month I have had the privilege of visiting Northern Ireland twice and have been fortunate enough to meet business people, civil society groups, athletic
	associations and representatives of inter-governmental bodies, as well as religious and political leaders. It was a privilege to attend the Ulster Unionist party conference in Belfast and the SDLP conference in Armagh. I look forward to attending the DUP conference this coming weekend and to paying a further visit before Christmas to Stormont and the UK’s city of culture, Derry/Londonderry. I have already learnt that Northern Ireland is an amazing place, home to people of tremendous courage and aspiration—a place that has been transformed over the past two decades by the peace process. Despite that remarkable progress, we know that significant challenges remain on security, the economy, building a shared future and, crucially in the context of new clauses 1 and 3, dealing with the past.
	I have been particularly moved—and, I should say, troubled—by my meetings with the families of victims of violence. It is clear to me that not only their search for truth and justice, but the scale and depth of the trauma that continues to afflict so many people and communities in Northern Ireland is not sufficiently understood or recognised by outsiders. That is one major reason why the Haass talks are so crucial. As I promised during the recent DUP Opposition day debate on the past, I will make a formal submission on behalf of my party to Ambassador Haass in the next few days, and that submission will be put in the public domain.
	Turning to the two new clauses I mentioned and, briefly, to other elements of the Bill, our position on political donations has been clear both when we were in government and now we are in opposition. We support greater transparency on political donations in Northern Ireland and it is a testimony to the progress made by all political parties that we are able to move towards this reality.
	I share the view of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), who has well made the point in the past that Northern Ireland politicians, serving both at Stormont and at Westminster, made an important contribution to the peace process. However, we agree that now is the time to end the practice of double-jobbing. It is right that this provision applies both to the Assembly and to the Dáil Éireann to maintain parity. As suggested by DUP Members, there is also a valid case for reducing the number of members of the Legislative Assembly, and we believe that this should be done on equal basis across constituencies, with a continued coupling with Westminster constituencies.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member has recently taken up his post. He has now made a few general remarks, but I would prefer it if he would come on to deal with the new clauses. Perhaps he was about to do so as I interrupted him.

Ivan Lewis: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have a long track record of obeying your instructions in a variety of contexts, and shall do so again.
	Dealing specifically with new clause 3, I ask the Minister to look sympathetically at the proposal that the Secretary of State should provide an annual report to the House on the work of the various organisations that deal with the past. As the current Haass talks
	highlight, dealing with the past in a serious and meaningful way is essential if the people of Northern Ireland are to make progress on building a shared future. While it is right that dealing with any processes relating to the past are led by the Northern Ireland Executive, there must be full and consistent engagement by the UK and Republic of Ireland Governments both because of their central role in the troubles and because likely solutions will require their active participation and their legislative and financial support.
	Although we broadly support the Bill, as I said at the beginning of my contribution, it is somewhat disappointing in its lack of ambition. It fails to do anything that will support economic growth or create opportunities for young people, which in my view are the greatest challenges Northern Ireland faces. While those issues are primarily the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive, the UK Government have a key role to play.
	As the Minister will be aware, unemployment in Northern Ireland remains above the UK average, with almost one in four young people out of work. Too many communities are struggling with the corrosive cycle of poor educational attainment, worklessness and inter-generational deprivation. That is on top of a cost of living crisis in which prices are rising and wages are falling.
	In conclusion, the Bill is necessary and, broadly speaking, deserves the support of the House. However, there are far bigger issues facing Northern Ireland that require the full engagement of the Government working with the Irish Government to support the Northern Ireland Executive. I hope this Government will start to show the leadership that is so essential at this crucial time for peace and stability in Northern Ireland.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me a second time. Before he concludes, would he address some of the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) for whom, I repeat, I have enormous regard, even though I have not agreed with half of what he has said this evening? While the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) is considering new clauses 1 to 3, would he particularly address the hon. Gentleman’s criticisms of the Historical Enquiries Team?

Ivan Lewis: At Madam Deputy Speaker’s urging, I was bringing my remarks to a conclusion, but I will address the specific point that the hon. Lady mentions. We will deal with the issue in our response to Ambassador Haass, which the hon. Lady asked me to put in the public domain; we shall do so in the next few days. My view is that, on the whole and in many cases, the work of the Historical Enquiries Team has been effective and has delivered some level of justice to victims. I think we should applaud that and draw attention to it at every opportunity. However, some serious and legitimate concerns have been raised about elements of the HET’s work, which must be seriously considered. There are also questions about the criteria applied to the investigations, the independence of the HET, its capacity to do its job, and the HET’s ability to carry out its functions given the limited resources available to the PSNI.
	Haass therefore provides an important opportunity not only to review and recognise the successes of the HET, but to reflect in the context of any new framework that is developed on some of the weaknesses and to try
	to put them right. We need a balanced and a measured approach to the HET. In speaking to victims, it has brought truth to a number of them—there is no question about that—but we know that independent evaluation has raised some serious and legitimate concerns. In the role that Ambassador Haass is fulfilling in the all-party talks, it is very important to get the balance right. Options would include a reformed HET or a replacement body to build on the successes of the HET, but there must be some structure to deliver truth and justice for the victims of violence in Northern Ireland. We need a balanced and sensible view of the HET’s successes, reform of the HET and of any future replacement body.

Sammy Wilson: Despite the hurt they have experienced, many people in Northern Ireland wish to put that hurt behind them. Often without invitation from the people concerned, the HET reopened the sores and the wounds. Indeed, rather than help the situation, it has made it worse for those people. We need to give careful consideration to simply saying that we need another body to replicate what the HET did, without any reference to the wishes of the victims.

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The first and overriding principle in any discussion about truth and justice has to be putting the victims centre stage. We know that victims have very different needs and very different wants. Some victims make it clear that they simply want truth. Others want justice, and others simply want to get on with their lives. Any process must therefore appropriately reflect the fact that we must start from the perspective of the needs and wants of victims. It is incredibly difficult to get that right, because there are such competing and different views of what people want, but the overriding principle has to be the needs of victims—not lumped together in a collective way, because the needs of every individual victim, treated sensitively wherever possible, must take centre stage.
	Having spoken to victims, I still believe that there remain so many outstanding cases for which we have neither truth nor justice, but if we were to close down the process at this stage, we would not be doing right by the families and relatives of the victims of violence in Northern Ireland. The question is how to reconcile all those competing pressures and extremely difficult challenges and come up with a system that enjoys maximum support in all communities in Northern Ireland. I certainly think there is a strong case for the importance of truth recovery, which has been mentioned in the past, and there is still a lot of work to be done around it. That, however, cannot be an alternative to justice for many people. It is vital to get the balance right.
	This is a crucial time for peace and stability in Northern Ireland, and let me say to the new Minister in particular that it is a particularly important time for the Government to demonstrate the leadership that is necessary there. It is not a time for disengagement on the part of the United Kingdom Government; it is incredibly important at this stage for them to work in partnership with the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
	I believe that new clauses 1 and 3 have a great deal of merit. However, I also believe that it would be wrong to prejudge the Haass process or to straitjacket the ambassador
	at this stage, and if the House were forced to express a view on what is proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), that would be the impact of tonight’s proceedings. I therefore urge my hon. Friend not to press the motion to a Division at this stage, but rather to see the points that he has made in his new clauses as a vital contribution to the debate, and a vital submission to the all-party talks.

Andrew Robathan: Let me first repeat an apology that I am sure you have already received, Madam Deputy Speaker, from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is currently on ministerial duty in the United States of America. Let me also echo the condolences and sympathy that have been expressed for the family of Eddie McGrady. I knew him a little, and took part in debates with him. I would say of him, overall, that he was a particularly decent man. I may have disagreed with him on various issues, but he certainly stood up for his constituents, and stood up for what he believed in in Ireland. He was both decent and courteous. I wish that we could say that about every Member of Parliament, but I am not sure that people will.
	Let me also say that I deplore the petrol bomb attack on the constituency offices of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who represents the Alliance party. As others have said, such acts have no place in the democratic process. This was a very worrying incident, and I hope very much that we shall not see more such incidents.
	I used to take a great deal of interest in Northern Ireland affairs, but this is the first time that I have spoken in a Northern Ireland debate for eight years. I have been otherwise detained elsewhere—and I think that that is more or less the right description. I believe that I made my last speech about Northern Ireland during a debate on what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) described in his opening speech as one of the worst pieces of legislation ever brought before the House, namely the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. I dug out my speech the other day, and I stand by every word of it. The Bill was indeed a disgraceful piece of legislation, and—as a result of pressure from all sides—it was rightly dropped by the last Administration.
	I understand that the issues raised by new clauses 1 and 3 were considered in Committee, and that the hon. Member for Foyle initiated those discussions as well. I appreciate that his party would like more to be done to address legacy issues, and I sympathise with that to a large extent. Like him and, I think, all Members of Parliament, we want to see a way forward that commands the support of all parts of the community and all parties in Northern Ireland, but it was not evident from the interventions on his speech that there was support for this particular way forward.
	Much of the responsibility for dealing with legacy issues is now devolved, and it is right for us to allow the local parties—which are, of course, represented here—to work towards an agreement on dealing with the past. I welcome the initiative that is being taken by the main local political parties in Northern Ireland to address the issue of dealing with the past through the all-party group chaired by Richard Haass. We have heard a certain amount about that today, and I agree with the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) that we must not pre-empt, or in any way undermine, what is being
	done by Richard Haass. The Government support the efforts that are being made, and hope that progress can be made. As a House and as a nation, we should await the outcome of the talks, and Dr Haass’s report.
	A great deal has been said about the Historical Enquiries Team. We should be clear about the fact that its work and the work of the police ombudsman are not the responsibilities of UK Ministers. Those bodies are accountable to the devolved institutions, and a carefully negotiated framework exists in relation to accountability of policing. There are already mechanisms for reporting on the work of the bodies that are the responsibility of the devolved Administration; creating a further mechanism is likely to incur unnecessary expense, and would also duplicate the work of other bodies.
	Let me say in relation to new clause 3 that the Secretary of State already reports to Parliament by way of parliamentary questions and the Northern Ireland Office’s annual report regarding the work for which she is responsible. That does not provide for everything that the hon. Member for Foyle wants, but the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee does examine the annual report.
	We cannot agree to the removal of the Secretary of State’s powers to exclude certain material from publication when it is in the interests of national security—or some other important public interest, such as the protection of life and safety—for that to be done. The Government therefore cannot support the new clauses, and, although I listened with interest to what was said by the hon. Member for Foyle, I ask him to withdraw his motion.

Mark Durkan: A number of points have been made about both new clauses, and I accept the spirit in which many of those points were made. I could readily rebut the detail, but I shall desist from doing so.
	Let me take this opportunity of acknowledging the warm tributes that have been paid to Eddie McGrady, with whom I served in the House and whose election campaign I managed in 1987, when he unseated Enoch Powell. He served all his constituents, and indeed the wider community in Northern Ireland, well, and he was clearly held in high honour. He was also a man of much greater humour than his public persona may often have allowed him to express, but he was absolutely dedicated to the sanctity of life and the solidarity of community on a totally inclusive basis. The parity of esteem of which he always spoke was something that he himself clearly enjoyed across the political divide.
	Important issues have been raised. I said at the outset that I did not wish to divide the House, or to do anything that could possibly be seen as pre-empting the Haass process. However, I think that the House must face up to its responsibilities in relation to the past, both now and in the future. It is in that spirit that I tabled the new clauses, and it is in that spirit that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Petitions of concern

‘(1) In section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Petitions of concern), omit subsection (3) and insert—
	“(3) When a petition of concern is lodged against a measure, proposal or a decision by a Minister, Department or the Executive (“the matter”), the Assembly shall appoint a special committee to examine and report on whether the matter is in conformity with equality and human rights requirements, including the European Convention on Human Rights and any Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.
	(4) Consistent with paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 (Strand 1) of the Belfast Agreement, a committee as provided for under subsection (3) may also be appointed at the request of the Executive Committee, a Northern Ireland Minister or relevant Assembly Committee.
	(5) A committee appointed under this section—
	(a) shall have the powers to call people and papers to assist in its consideration; and
	(b) shall take evidence from the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission.
	(6) The Assembly shall consider the report of any committee appointed under this section and determine the matter in accordance with the requirements for cross-community support.
	(7) Standing Orders shall provide for—
	(a) decisions on the size, timescale and terms of reference for such a committee; and
	(b) procedure(s) to allow for subsection (8).
	(8) In relation to any specific petition of concern or request under subsection (4), the Assembly may decide, with cross-community support, that the procedure in subsections (3) and (5) shall not apply.”.’.
	This Clause would amend the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to reflect the terms and intent of paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of strand 1 of the Belfast Agreement. It would qualify the exercise of veto powers, via petitions of concern in the Assembly, through the consideration of possible equality or human rights implications.
	—
	(Mark Durkan.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Mark Durkan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 3,page6,line37 [Clause 6], at end add—
	7B The alteration of the number of members of the Assembly required to express their concern about a matter which is to be voted on by the Assembly, such concern requiring that the vote on that matter shall require cross-community support. This paragraph does not include the alteration of that number to a number exceeding 30.”.’.
	Amendment 4,page16,line3 [Clause 22], at end insert—
	‘(1) After subsection (2) of the section 75 (Statutory duty on public authorities) of that Act insert—
	(2A) A public authority shall not interpret its obligations under subsection (2) in a way that is incompatible with measures taken on the basis of objective need.”
	(1B) In subsection (5) of section 75 of that Act insert ““good relations” shall be interpreted in line with international obligations and, in particular, with regard to—
	(a) tackling prejudice, and
	(b) promoting understanding.”.’.
	This amendment would apply to Northern Ireland, the clarification provided in the Equality Act 2010 to restrict the good relation duty being cited against fulfilling equality obligations based on objective need.

Mark Durkan: The new clause and amendments are intended to return the position to what was intended in the Good Friday, or Belfast, agreement of 1998. New clause 2 seeks to reflect properly what was in paragraphs 11,
	12 and 13 of the strand 1 paper, which provide for a petition of concern in respect of a measure or a proposal in the Assembly. Those paragraphs make clear that the petition of concern was not meant to be used as an open veto to be played like a joker at any time.
	The position relating to the petition is qualified in the agreement, but unfortunately that was not reflected in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. In the initial Bill, there was no reflection whatsoever of the true provisions of paragraphs 11 to 13. When some of us pointed that out, the Northern Ireland Office “scrambled in” a measure stating that the Assembly’s Standing Orders should make provision for the procedures outlined in those paragraphs, but unfortunately the Standing Orders never did make that provision. They ended up providing for a petition of concern which could be signed by 30 Members, and that automatically became a dead-end veto: end of story.
	This new clause seeks to remind people that the Good Friday agreement said that those issuing a petition of concern would have the opportunity to prove they have a legitimate concern on grounds either of equality or human rights and that those grounds would be tested by a special committee that would be established in the Assembly to report on the matter. We worked that out very painstakingly during the negotiations because people were concerned that a petition of concern might simply become a drive-by veto, as it were, on any issue going forward or even being tabled, which could lead to gridlock with tit-for-tat vetoes and petitions of concern. The then leader of the Alliance party, now Lord Alderdice, spoke very strongly in the negotiations about his concern that we should not have just an open-ended free-for-all system of vetoes.
	The notion of having petitions of concern is rightly in the agreement, not least because having protections around decision-making mechanisms was a key part of the rules in the negotiations that led to the agreement, and, therefore, if it was essential in the rules that led to the agreement, it would be essential in the agreement itself. The particular model of protections had to be carefully balanced and calibrated, however.
	The balance we came up with was that there could be a petition of concern, but it would not of itself be a veto. Unfortunately, the system as it is now practised does turn the petition of concern into a veto. That has meant that many matters in Northern Ireland end up not progressing, and some are not even tabled at the Executive or in the Assembly because the veto is now also used as a predictive veto, to prevent issues being tabled and to hold things up in discussion within the bowels of government somewhere.

Nigel Dodds: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying and his interpretation of the Belfast agreement, and if I have the opportunity to speak I will deal with that in more detail, but it is an interpretation. As we had the agreement of his party, which was the main nationalist party at the time, and the agreement of the Ulster Unionist party, which was the main Unionist party at that time, and the wholehearted agreement of the then Government led by Tony Blair and the wholehearted support of the then Opposition in this House, how did this major issue that the hon. Gentleman is so exercised about not get translated into legislation? How did that happen?

Mark Durkan: It happened precisely for the reasons I have suggested. First, the NIO draftspeople who drafted the Bill neglected to deal with that part of the agreement, and there were a few other provisions like that as well, which just goes to prove that, contrary to what we read in a lot of memoirs, the agreement was not drafted by the British Government, the Irish Government or the American Government; instead, it was broadly drafted by the Northern Ireland politicians.

Nigel Dodds: It is not good enough to blame the draftsmen and say, “Oh, the draftsmen left it out.” Surely in all the hours of consideration in this House and in Committee and the massive debates that took place at home, here and everywhere else on the legislation that became the Northern Ireland Act 1998, someone—not least the hon. Gentleman himself—could have prompted a Member of the House to say, “An amendment might be in order. This is such a glaring gap that it needs to be filled”? Why was that not done?

Mark Durkan: I actually think an amendment may well have been tabled because, although I was not a Member of this House, I remember drafting an amendment —but I am not sure whether it was subsequently tabled.
	I should stress that when we pointed out that this was not provided for in the agreement, the NIO response was to provide for it by way of a stipulation that the Assembly Standing Orders would provide for that procedure. That turned out not to be robust enough. The right hon. Gentleman might say, “Well, did we not address that in Assembly Standing Orders?” He will find that the record of the Assembly shows, in the very first Standing Orders report, that I did address the fact that it was not there. The then Presiding Officer, Lord Alderdice, acknowledged my attention to detail, in so far as he could without being drawn into the debate; that obviously went very much back to his own participation in the negotiations.

Sammy Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a more cynical interpretation of why those concerned neglected to deal with this at that stage is that the UUP and the SDLP were then the largest parties, and they were hoping that they might be able to use the veto? Perhaps the reason for the concern now about the petition of concern is that the SDLP is not in a position to use it—as was originally intended, which is the reason why the legislation did not reflect what he is now saying that he wants.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman might have some basis for saying that if there was any truth in it, which, of course, there is not, not least because we deliberately set the petition of concern threshold at 30 because at that time we thought there was no chance of a party reaching the 30s. That was one of the reasons why the 30 threshold was there; there were concerns about how freely this could be used and that it might block things up.
	The need for the petition of concern to be significant was emphasised not just by the threshold but by the special committee procedure to show whether there was a prima facie case on either equality or human rights grounds. The petition of concern was not to be used just for the convenience of a party that wanted to stop
	something. The fact is, however, that petitions of concern have been used to veto Bills that addressed the question of dual mandates between local government and the Assembly, which is a completely undue use. A petition of concern was also used to veto any question of a binding or significant vote in relation to censure of a Minister; it was never meant to be used in that sort of way.
	The fact of a petition of concern being used, or being threatened to be used, by different parties prevents issues from being tabled. The whole point of the petition of concern was not to stop things being tabled, but to ensure that when they were tabled they were duly frisked and tested in respect of sensitive considerations such as human rights and equality. New clause 2 simply tries to get the Assembly out of the rut it is currently in, where vetoes are used far too often in a way that not only negates outcomes but prevents debate.
	Amendment 4 seeks to ensure consistency with what was intended and envisaged in the Good Friday agreement and in the provisions that became section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act, which provides for equality duties and duties of public bodies in respect of good relations. On a number of occasions in recent years there has been a move to say that the good relations duty could sometimes trump the equality duty, so that a public body might not come through with a measure on equality grounds based on objective need because somebody else might feel it would upset good relations. We have seen that arise in relation to the Irish language, and there have been suggestions of its arising in relation to the provision and siting of social housing as well. The amendment seeks to clarify the balance and relationship between the good relations duty and the equality duty.

Naomi Long: But surely what the amendment does is not clarify the balance between the two, but in fact give one supremacy over the other? The reality is that in a divided society where there are competing rights and tensions in respect of those rights it is essential to strike a balance. Instead of simply giving equality the upper hand on all occasions, we must ensure that equality and good relations are balanced in decision-making processes.

Mark Durkan: That is why the amendment seeks to translate into Northern Ireland legislation something that the House legislated on for Great Britain in the Equality Act 2010, by specifying the relationship between good relations and equality based on objective need. We cannot use the question of good relations to justify a decision that fails to exercise an equality duty based on objective need.
	When we discussed this matter upstairs in the Bill Committee, I pointed out that my proposal would not have the converse effect that a public body could not introduce a measure with an eye to good relations unless it also met the requirement of equality based on objective need. The new clause would not, for example, prevent the sort of thing that happened in my constituency in relation to the Fountain estate. There was widespread support for creating a new school there, even though it would not have fulfilled any of the criteria on the Department of Education’s lists relating to qualifying for capital spending on a new school. Similar issues
	arose there over school transport. Because of the particular circumstances of the estate and the community, however, and because of the ambition to uphold the ethos of a shared city, it was agreed that it should happen for reasons of good relations and community support, even though the proposals did not fulfil any of the Department’s investment criteria relating to need.
	The new clause would not prevent such a project from going ahead in the future. It would, however, prevent someone from using concerns about good relations or agitating to advertise tensions in relations as a way of preventing a measure from going forward on the basis of equality based on objective need, whether in relation to language or to any other public programme or investment, such as in social housing.
	I am simply trying to correct the confusion that is now building up, and to remove the undue tension that is being created by the two important aspects represented in section 75 and that relate to the commitments in the Good Friday agreement. On that basis, I commend new clause 2 and amendment 4 to the House.

Nigel Dodds: Thank you for calling me to speak in this short debate on new clause 2, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should also like to speak to amendment 3, which stands in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
	In new clause 2, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) is proposing to introduce new provisions relating to petitions of concern. I understand that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee is dealing with this matter, among others, and I believe that that is the right and proper place for the issue to be decided on. It is for the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly to agree or disagree to such matters relating to petitions of concern. I understand that 40% of the petitions of concern tabled in the Northern Ireland Assembly have been tabled by the nationalist parties, so this is not a question of one party tabling petitions in a way that abuses the process. This has happened right across the board.
	New clause 2 could create the potential for gridlock in the Assembly. Let us remember that a petition of concern is lodged after a matter has been debated in the Assembly and is about to be voted on. Let us imagine how it would play out in this Chamber if such a process had to be undergone after a debate and before a vote could be taken. Under the new clause, a committee would have to be set up. As soon as we hear the word “committee”, we know that we are not going to be in for a quick decision-making process—certainly not in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The new clause goes on to propose that a committee appointed for this purpose
	“shall have the powers to call people and papers to assist in its consideration”.
	Not only that, but it “shall take evidence”—that would not be discretionary— from
	“the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission.”
	This would no doubt have to happen when diaries had been sorted out and all the necessary people had been brought in to be cross-examined and to give their evidence. Then, after the committee had listened to all the evidence, sifted it and debated it, voted on it and produced a report—in addition to all the other committee and legislative work that those Assembly Members do—the Assembly would have to
	“consider the report of any committee appointed under this section and determine the matter in accordance with the requirements for cross-community support.”
	Only then could the Assembly have its vote.
	I respectfully suggest that that is not a recipe for quick governance or quick decision making. The Northern Ireland Assembly is already criticised in relation to processing matters quickly and efficiently, and I submit that the new clause would add greatly to the problems.

Sammy Wilson: rose—

Nigel Dodds: I give way to a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly who knows only too well the problems that arise there.

Sammy Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as a petition of concern is likely to have been issued because there is concern and a lack of cross-community support, the requirement in subsection (6) could never be met? If the reason for lodging the petition of concern in the first place was a lack of cross-community support, how could a report from a committee ever get through the Assembly to allow a vote to take place?

Nigel Dodds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those of us who have served in the Northern Ireland Assembly know that that is exactly what would happen. The new clause is misconceived. It would simply bung up the works of the Assembly and make no advances in getting things done.
	In an intervention, I asked the hon. Member for Foyle why the provisions in his new clause had not been in the original Northern Ireland Act. First, he blamed the draftsmen. I then asked whether no one in the then Government or Opposition or in any of the Northern Ireland parties was in any way culpable for not having spotted this massive gap in the legislation. I asked whether an amendment had been tabled to rectify the omission. I have no doubt that, if it had been part of the Belfast agreement, the then Government would happily have acceded to the change.
	The only opposition that was coming in from any quarter came from those of us in the DUP and allied Unionists who pointed out that we could not found an agreement without support for the police, the courts and the rule of law in Northern Ireland. I am glad that we finally managed to achieve that objective at the St Andrew’s agreement and elsewhere. That is why we now have stable devolution. I do not want to go into that debate now, however. The point is that the hon. Gentleman said that he thought he might have drafted an amendment, but he did not know whether it had even been tabled.
	I want to try to explain why this matter might have been left out of the original legislation. I have looked at paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the Belfast agreement, and I submit that the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation of them is open to question. The provisions relating to petitions of concern were set out in paragraph 5(d) of strand 1 of the agreement. That agreement was drafted by his party as well as the other parties that agreed with its terms. That provision contains no qualifications whatever: there is no reference to equality or to the circumstances in which petitions of concern may be lodged.
	The section of the agreement that deals with “Operation of the Assembly” covers Chairs and Deputy Chairs of the Assembly, and the role of the Committees and Standing Committees. Then we get to paragraph 11, which states:
	“The Assembly may appoint a special Committee to examine and report on whether a measure or proposal for legislation is in conformity with equality requirements, including the ECHR/Bill of Rights. The Committee shall have the power to call people and papers to assist in its consideration of the matter.”
	Paragraph 12 states:
	“The above special procedure shall be followed when requested by the Executive Committee, or by the relevant Departmental Committee, voting on a cross-community basis.”
	Paragraph 13 then refers to “a petition of concern” in relation to whether or not that special procedure is involved. But the special procedure—the committee that is set up—is about an investigation at the behest of a departmental Committee or the Executive into a measure or legislation which they consider worthy of consideration under those terms. It is not about whether or not we have a petition of concern.

Mark Durkan: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I was there negotiating the agreement and I know what was understood and agreed. Clearly, those paragraphs provide for a committee to be appointed not only in response to a petition of concern, but at the request of the Executive or departmental Committee, because we were saying that a petition of concern should not be the only way of triggering the establishment of a special committee. That was to reflect the fact that there may be concerns about human rights and about equality.

Nigel Dodds: But the agreement certainly does not talk about setting up the procedure that the hon. Gentleman has alluded to today relating to petitions of concern. Saying, “I was there, so I know what it was about” is not going to wash. We have to deal with the written text—what is there. Saying, “I was there and I know what it meant, and we should legislate on that basis” is not a good way forward.

Mark Durkan: The right hon. Gentleman’s earlier remarks failed to address the fact that I had made it clear that whenever the omission in the earlier Bill was pointed out, Northern Ireland Office Ministers moved to deal with that omission by putting a provision in the Bill. The provision relies on Standing Orders, but it actually says that the Assembly’s Standing Orders shall provide for the procedure provided for in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the Good Friday agreement.

Nigel Dodds: I have absolutely no difficulty with the Assembly’s Standing Orders providing for that, because I have already referred to my interpretation of what those paragraphs relate to. All I am saying is that the massively cumbersome, clumsy, convoluted, time-consuming, time-wasting process set out in new clause 2 on petitions of concern will be a disaster for the Northern Ireland Assembly if this House is ever so unwise as to pass it.

Lady Hermon: May I take the liberty of trying to summarise what the right hon. Gentleman has said? I understand that he and his colleagues disagree vehemently with the content and detail of new clause 2, but am
	I right in understanding that they support the Assembly parties looking at the excessive use of petitions of concern? Does he accept that they are used excessively in the Assembly, that we have stalemate on too many occasions and that it is simply left for the Assembly to deal with this issue?

Nigel Dodds: I do not accept that. I do not accept that we have an excessive use of petitions of concern. I would need to look at all the evidence and, as I have said, 40% of the petitions are put down by nationalists. I do not subscribe to any gridlock being entirely down to these petitions, but the new clause would add to the problems if it were passed. Let us consider the example of welfare reform, which is currently held up in the Assembly. The Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who has now moved on, was in Northern Ireland the other day warning about the consequences of welfare reform delays for the block grant. That has nothing to do with petitions of concern; that is a political hold-up because Sinn Fein will not grasp and deal with the issue, and it is going to cost the entire Northern Ireland electorate, ratepayers and taxpayers a lot of money if it does not. So I do not think that petitions of concern are primarily the issue here.
	What seems to be at the root of the proposal by the hon. Member for Foyle is that some kind of abuse is happening. He spoke about when petitions of concern should be used and so on, although that is not qualified in the Belfast agreement. What happens when we consider other elements, for instance, the cross-community voting? He has not in any way sought to amend that—indeed, no party has. If proposals were to be made about that, they should be discussed within the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, and the parties in Northern Ireland should come up with their own suggestions, solutions and proposals.
	I recall a famous day when I was in the Assembly and those processes of cross-community voting were abused—a horse and carriage was driven through the powers of designation. The Alliance party previously had been designated as “other”—neither Unionist nor nationalist—and has remained “other” for every other vote and occasion since. However, on this occasion it was persuaded to become, in the words of its now leader,
	“the back end of a pantomime horse”—
	that is how he described it—by designating the party as “Unionist”. Why was that done? It was done to ensure that then deputy leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the hon. Gentleman’s party, could remain as Deputy First Minister when he had actually resigned. The proposal was introduced whereby the Assembly had to accept the resignation for it to become valid. There was a total abuse of the rules and of the purposes for which they were introduced. This has never been done since because people were appalled by it, yet reference is never made to it.

William McCrea: Is it not strange that, yet again, we are hearing from the revisionists? Whenever 40% is republican, we are told, “No, there is no abuse of petitions of concern.” But, then, when the Unionists use 60%, we are told, “Yes, that is abuse.” So, once again, we have, “Unionists at fault. Nationalists and republicans not
	at all.” My right hon. Friend mentioned that Seamus Mallon resigned and then did not resign. Well, Bobby Ewing came out of the shower and he was dead—and then he was not dead, after all.

Nigel Dodds: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s remarks.
	In conclusion, new clause 2 is a misconceived proposal, but I commend amendment 3. It is a technical amendment saying that if we are giving the power to the Northern Ireland Assembly to reduce the number of Members of the Legislative Assembly—as we are proposing to do in this Bill, because that is right and proper, and that should be a matter for the Assembly—the Assembly should also have the power to consider the number of people required for a petition of concern to be valid. For it to remain at 30 would be completely wrong, as that number was regarded as proportionate for 108 MLAs. If the Assembly were reduced to 90 MLAs or fewer, as would be my preference, it would clearly be right, proper and sensible to reduce the number required to sign a petition of concern. Amendment 3 is a technical and sensible amendment, and I hope the Government will take it on board.

Andrew Robathan: We are considering two issues of vital importance to the political settlement in Northern Ireland that are embodied in the Belfast agreement of 1998, a copy of which we have seen on the other side of the Chamber. Petitions of concern are intended to ensure that on sensitive issues, the views of both sides of the community in Northern Ireland must be taken into account. That is fundamental to the power-sharing arrangements that now exist in Stormont. The requirement that 30 MLAs sign a petition was part of the Belfast agreement and it has not been amended since that time. I believe that petitions of concern have been used 61 times since 1998, but there have been many more cases when the possibility of such a petition being used has led to policies being rejected or amended before reaching that stage.
	At times, that has resulted in deadlock and important decisions being delayed. A failure to take into account the views of both communities would be far more damaging and could affect the stability of the settlement as a whole. As has been made clear, not all parties are content with how petitions are used at present, and I have some sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds).
	Given the concern in Northern Ireland about the way in which the petitions are used, greater scrutiny of the impact of such decisions would seem appropriate, but there is already provision in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 for scrutiny of the kind the hon. Member for Foyle has proposed. The question is whether it would be appropriate for the UK Government to dictate to the Northern Ireland Assembly that such scrutiny must take place. I do not believe it appropriate for us so to do.
	Turning to the amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman, it is a valid question whether the number of Members needed to trigger a petition of concern should remain the same if the Assembly is reduced substantially in size. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) made clear in Committee, amending the threshold of support required for a petition of concern would require cross-community
	support before the Government could back it. Cross-community support is particularly important for this measure, which is a fundamental building block of the 1998 agreement and is specifically intended to protect minority interests. We have heard today of the different views that exist on the use of petitions of concern, and let me be clear to the House that no consensus currently exists on the matter. If such consensus emerged—for example, from the review process under way in the Northern Ireland Assembly—the Government would certainly be ready to consider giving effect to the conclusions when a legislative vehicle was assembled. However, I fear we are not yet at that point.
	Turning to the amendment to clause 22, proposed by the hon. Member for Foyle, I know that the debate about objective need and equality is a live one in Northern Ireland and is a subject the new Minister should engage with delicately. I appreciate the force of and feeling behind what the hon. Gentleman said, and his comments will of course be noted in Northern Ireland. There are many who argue that the interpretation of “good relations” is the appropriate reading of section 75 as it stands. In its guidance for public authorities on promoting good relations, the Equality Commission Northern Ireland states:
	“Equality of opportunity and good relations are inextricably linked and interdependent, and both must be addressed by designated public authorities. A failure to achieve one impacts on the ability to achieve the other.”
	It adds:
	“Promoting equality of opportunity sometimes requires the use of positive action measures in order to address existing inequalities with a view to achieving a level playing field for all. In such circumstances, public authorities must have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations both within and between communities, on the grounds of race, religious belief and political opinion, and consider what steps need to be taken to gain the confidence, trust and acceptance of all parts of the community. Communication of the reasons for the positive action is essential in this situation.”
	Even if the clarification in the amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Foyle is necessary, it is difficult territory for Parliament to enter into without prior consultation with the Assembly and the Executive in Northern Ireland, which would try to find the broadest possible measure of agreement.
	Much of equality law is devolved, and it would be wrong for us to legislate unilaterally here. The Executive have announced their strategy document on a shared future, entitled “Together: Building a United Community”, which proposes changes in the law, including the establishment of an equality and good relations commission. It seems that that is the context in which such steps should be considered. We would prefer, therefore, that the amendment be not pressed in the House, but I am sure the debate will go on and on. For the moment, I ask the hon. Member for Foyle and the right hon. Member for Belfast North to withdraw the new clause and the amendments.

Mark Durkan: I assure the House that I stand fully by both amendments and the case for them, but that will not run to the extent of troubling the House with a Division on them, not least out of respect to other business both on the Bill and on other matters yet to come.
	As I have already said, I can refute all the arguments that have been made against both of my new clauses. I can also correct the mistaken reference to the Alliance redesignating to help elect Seamus Mallon as Deputy First Minister. At the time the Alliance redesignated, it was to elect David Trimble and me as First Minister and Deputy First Minister. As I understood it, the whole point about Seamus Mallon being deemed not to have resigned was precisely to avoid a vote. I want to correct that in case anybody thinks that I have been economical with the truth as it relates to me. At the time, I made it very clear to the then Secretary of State, John Reid, that I would have preferred an Assembly election than to be elected on that basis and on those terms. That clear view was expressed to both the Secretary of State and to Downing street at the time.
	The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) claimed that the procedures proposed would lead to indefinite delay. They would not, because any Committee would be subject to a time scale; Standing Order 35 of the Assembly partially provides for that, albeit, again, not correctly. This is about properly joining up provisions to form the agreement. We have real delay and ongoing gridlock in Northern Ireland when a petition of concern is exercised as an open-ended veto—it ends matters so that nothing goes forward. The new clause would create a procedure whereby people had to put up or shut up on an equality or human rights issue, otherwise the measure concerned would proceed. To that extent, it would be an aid to better governance and a more responsible use of petitions of concern as well.

Nigel Dodds: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking for his other crimes and misdemeanours to be taken into account, which were actually worse than I remembered—they were to get him elected.

Mark Durkan: I had no part in that.

Nigel Dodds: Again, the hon. Gentleman makes his own defence. He says that it was not him and that he had argued for an election. Nevertheless, he benefited. I am grateful to him for that clarification, although it does not aid his cause.
	I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the role of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, of which we are apprised. If the threshold for petitions of concern is not addressed, it is bound to have an effect on the thinking of parties and their desire to implement change with regard to the numbers in the Assembly. The matter has to be addressed at some point, but given what the Minister has said, and in deference to other business, I will not press our amendment to a vote tonight.

Mark Durkan: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Donations

Andrew Robathan: I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 37, leave out “October” and insert “January”.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 2.

Andrew Robathan: These are relatively minor changes, and I hope that Members on both sides of the House will be able to support them. There has been support on both sides of the House for the provisions in clause 1, which will protect permanently the identities of those who have made donations to Northern Ireland political parties in the past.
	In the past, donors gave money with the understanding that their identities would not be revealed, and it would be unfair to change that position without their consent retrospectively. However, there has been some debate about the date on which the guarantee of anonymity should end. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who is in her place, proposed amendments that would reduce the length of time for which donors would continue to benefit from these provisions. It is important that all donors are fully aware that the rules have changed at the point at which they make a donation.
	The Bill as drafted refers to 1 October next year because the Government believed that that would ensure the clearest framework for political parties. It is a date that is already familiar to parties and their financial supporters as the date on which the prescribed period will end if the Bill does not come into force. All donors are already on notice that permanent anonymity will come to an end at that point. However, it has never been the Government’s policy to stand in the way of changes that might help to increase transparency, provided that the change to an earlier date can be implemented.
	In view of the support for the change from all Northern Ireland parties represented in the House, whose donors are those affected, and from the Electoral Commission, which regulates party finance, the Government are willing to support a change to an earlier date.

Nigel Dodds: Will the Minister confirm that if the amendment is passed tonight and the Bill receives Royal Assent all donations up to 1 January will be permanently excluded from being revealed? Is that the Government’s understanding of the position?

Andrew Robathan: That was my understanding. I have just taken advice from those in the Box and they agree, so I think we are pretty sure that that is the case.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister kindly give me some advice? A large number of delightful gentlemen and ladies in my constituency are members of the Northern Ireland Conservatives. Should they follow this Bill, which applies only to Northern Ireland, or should they follow the example set by the Conservative party in the rest of the United Kingdom and make all their large donors and donations transparent, open and public, rather than keeping them secret?

Andrew Robathan: I am not entirely clear what the hon. Lady is suggesting. The Bill will bring things in Northern Ireland to the same level as in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Lady Hermon: I am very pleased to see the Minister at the Dispatch Box this evening, but if the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had been here she would,
	of course, have quite rightly reminded the House that Northern Ireland has become such a normal place that it could host the G8 summit in Fermanagh successfully and could host the world police and fire games. No matter how normal Northern Ireland has become, however, for some reason this Bill will preserve the anonymity of and secrecy about donations to political parties in Northern Ireland. That, of course, is not the policy in the rest of the United Kingdom, where the Conservative party supports transparency. Will the Minister take this opportunity to urge his sisters and brothers in the Northern Ireland Conservative party to make their donations public?

Andrew Robathan: As of the end of January, they will all be public, as no anonymity will go beyond that—

Ivan Lewis: No, you have the discretion to change it.

Andrew Robathan: Oh, I see. It is because it is discretionary. I am sorry, I had missed the point made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). Having the discretion gives us the opportunity to do it, if I can put it that way. I think that she will understand what I am saying, but given that the Secretary of State is not here I think that it would be unwise of me to go any further down that road. I am sorry that I did not understand what she was saying the first time around.
	Let me now turn to amendment 2. Clauses 14, 15 and 16 introduce minor changes to the requirements for voter registration for Northern Ireland, the requirements for obtaining an overseas vote and the requirements for absent voting. Hon. Members will be aware that European parliamentary elections are scheduled to be held on 22 May 2014. We look forward to them. It is also the Government’s intention that local elections in Northern Ireland be held on that date.
	Amendment 2 is a technical amendment that changes the commencement date for clauses 14, 15 and 16 to avoid their coming into force during or immediately before the election period, which would be not only inconvenient but very difficult. It would avoid a situation in which electoral administrators in Northern Ireland were expected to make changes to registration and application processes at a time when they were busy with electoral preparations. It would also help to avoid public confusion about voter entitlements. It remains the Government’s intention to commence the provisions as soon as possible and in good time for elections to this House in 2015. As we say in government, the provisions will commence “soon” after the elections in 2014.

Naomi Long: I support the amendment, and I particularly welcome the fact that following our debate in Committee of the whole House the Government have listened to the representations I made, as well as those made by the “Who Pulls the Strings” campaign in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
	It is not often that those of us on the Opposition Benches see the matters that we would like a Bill to deal with being addressed. It is even rarer for those of us who sit as solitary Members to see such concerns taken on board. I am particularly pleased that a compelling argument has been made for the amendment. I must qualify that, however, with my slight disappointment
	that we have been unable to go further to remove the exemptions and rules in Northern Ireland to allow us to move into line with the rest of the UK. There is evidence of huge public demand for that in Northern Ireland. Like in every other part of the UK, and, I suspect, in almost every other part of the democratic world, there is suspicion and a perception in the minds of the public that politics operates for the benefit of the few not the many and that those who have money and influence can wield that to their own advantage.
	To rebuild trust and confidence in the political system, it is hugely important that people have transparency about donations and can scrutinise whether donations made to political parties influence policy and decision making at a government level. That is not possible currently because even though donations are declared to the Electoral Commission, they cannot be published. I believe that the time has come for the veil of secrecy to be lifted.
	The amendment is a good step in that direction in that it clarifies the position for donors. Those who donate up until the January date will know that their anonymity will be permanent. There was a question mark over that as the powers of the Secretary of State would have allowed those donations to be published retrospectively. I believe that people gave that money on the understanding that it would be handled with confidentiality and privacy, and that expectation should be met by the Government. That is very important.
	The amendment also means that those who donate after January will know that those donations will eventually be published. They will not be published right away. It will be for the Secretary of State to decide at the next point of review, which is due, I think, in October 2014, whether the security situation, in her view, would allow her to publish them.
	The amendment makes it very clear to anybody making a donation from January onwards that at some point in the future that donation will be open to public scrutiny. It clarifies the situation in their minds so that they know when they make the donation the risk and the public scrutiny that will be involved. They will be able to make an informed decision.
	Sir Christopher Kelly gave evidence on the subject to the Committee. He was very clear that he was not convinced by the argument that security should automatically outweigh the right of the public to scrutinise donations that are made to political parties. I share his view and do not believe that security should outweigh that right. Indeed, despite everything that has been said in the House about intimidation and threats against my own party, we continue voluntarily to publish the details of those people who make donations of more than £7,500 to the Alliance party so that people are fully aware of and can scrutinise our policy decisions.
	Perhaps I can take this opportunity to encourage the Minister, which I think my colleague the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) sought to do, to encourage his colleagues in the Conservative party in Northern Ireland to join us in voluntarily publishing their donors. Indeed, I urge other parties in this House in Northern Ireland to do likewise. I think that it would help to build trust and confidence in the political system, to ventilate what has become quite a toxic issue in Northern Ireland, not least in recent months, and to move forward on a clearer footing.
	My disappointment is that we are not in a position at this point to make more progress on bringing us into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. However, the amendment is a good step forward. It will provide clarity for the public and reassurance that the direction of travel is towards openness and transparency. I thank the Government for taking this on board. The assurances given by the Electoral Commission that they can prepare parties and donors to be ready for the change that is about to take place by January has been helpful in enabling things to move forward. I thank the Government and fully support what they are proposing.

Laurence Robertson: Before I discuss the amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps I may pay tribute briefly to the late Eddie McGrady, who served in this House for many years. It was a pleasure to work with him. He was indeed a decent man with a sharp and ready sense of humour and I know that he will be sadly missed in Northern Ireland.
	I join others in condemning the attacks on the office of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who is a very valuable member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. Having worked with her on that Committee for three years, I know that she will not be put off by the attacks; she will continue to show great determination, and to carry out the work that she has been doing with great distinction.
	The Select Committee was keen for a move towards transparency as regards donations in Northern Ireland, partly, as has been said, to move the Province towards what might be termed more normal politics. It was interesting; we took evidence from all the political parties—not just the main ones, but the smaller ones in Northern Ireland—and I think that I am right in saying that there was unanimous agreement that we should move towards greater transparency on donations. There were some question marks about how quickly that should happen, and about the security situation, but it was generally accepted that people who stand for office in Northern Ireland, and those who sign nomination papers, put up posters or go canvassing, take the same risks as people who make donations to political parties in Northern Ireland; why would they be any different? For me, that was the convincing argument.
	As my right hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, clause 1 allows the Secretary of State the discretion to make the decision. The Select Committee suggested that there be a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult the appropriate security authorities with regard to taking that decision, but overwhelmingly, we felt that we should move towards greater transparency regarding donations in Northern Ireland. Like the hon. Member for Belfast East, I am grateful to the Government for listening to the points that the Select Committee made on not only this issue, but others.

Nigel Dodds: When the matter was debated and voted on in Committee of the whole House, we voted for the proposal. The Government have had consultations, and the measure has been brought forward because it has widespread support in Northern Ireland, and so fulfils one of the criteria for changes to which the Minister has alluded previously. It is because there is cross-party consensus that the amendment has been put forward,
	and we welcome that move. We have absolutely no difficulty with moving towards greater transparency from 1 January —mindful, of course, that as the Minister says, there is no change to the fundamental point that the decision will be made only when the security situation allows. If it is made, however, it can be retrospective and apply back to 1 January.
	We remain concerned that the amendment, and the Bill, will not close the massive loophole that allows parties from outside the United Kingdom to be bankrolled to a fairly considerable degree by donations made outside—indeed, very far from—the jurisdiction. In that context, I refer to a report of 11 November in the Belfast Telegraph that revealed that Sinn Fein was being bankrolled by donations from American companies
	“that have been embroiled in racism”,
	discrimination and
	“embezzlement…scandals.”
	Sinn Fein took in £245,000 in the period up to May this year, and almost £31,000 of that
	“was used to pay printing expenses in Northern Ireland and to purchase a vehicle.”
	A political party that operates and seeks votes in part of the United Kingdom, and is elected to this House and to the Assembly, is allowed, through the special provisions of electoral donation law, to raise such funds and channel them to Northern Ireland, and basically to skew the electoral process through massive donations from abroad.
	Unfortunately, the Government have not, so far, seen fit to close that loophole, which should not be available to any party. When the decision was made to bring in regulations and legislation on the funding of, and donations and loans to, political parties, it was rightly decided that, in principle and fact, parties should be able to receive donations only from registered electors in the United Kingdom. That is a solid, sound principle, but an exception has been made in relation to Northern Ireland. Nationalist parties—primarily Sinn Fein—can raise all this money outside the jurisdiction. That money is used to influence the political and electoral process. It is a scandal, and it is wrong, morally, politically and constitutionally. Something needs to be done about it; a party has openly admitted, through records filed in the United States, that it is using foreign money. One can imagine the howls of outrage that there would be from other parties if a Unionist party, or the Conservative, Labour or Social Democratic and Labour parties, used foreign money that had been donated secretly to fund their electoral campaigns, with no accountability.

Sammy Wilson: Sleazy money.

Nigel Dodds: Sleazy money. One can imagine the howls of outrage that there would be from sanctimonious people in Sinn Fein about that, yet we are talking about a party that is receiving individual sums of up to $20,000. Documents filed with the US Department of Justice indicate that a New York-based company called MarJam Supply Company contributed $5,000. A Government employment equality agency in the United States found that staff at that company were subjected to racial abuse. Another company that gives money to Sinn Fein hit the headlines after its former boss was sentenced to three years in jail for embezzling pension
	money. The former chairman of another company that donated $1,000 to Sinn Fein pleaded guilty to conspiracy and bribery charges. How do we know all that? It is because the US authorities require that information to be registered in the United States—it is no thanks to legislation passed in this House.
	I say to the Government that this is intolerable. It is a scandalous abuse of the electoral system in Northern Ireland. No wonder the IRA and Sinn Fein do not have to rob banks any more, when they can get that sort of money flowing into their coffers from abroad, with no accountability whatever. I urge the Government to listen, to take this argument on board, and to create a level playing field for all the other parties.
	This is not an appeal made on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party. We will fight our campaigns and get our votes; I am confident that we will do well. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said in an earlier debate that he never foresaw any party in Northern Ireland getting more than 30 seats and being able to trigger a petition of concern. He did not envisage it; I am sure that if he had envisaged it, the trigger figure would have been higher. We have 38 Members. Things can happen in Northern Ireland, and we will fight our battle. When it comes to donations and loans, all that I am calling for is a level playing field for everybody. The Government need to act on that. Frankly, it would be a disgrace if, in this Parliament, a Government led by a Conservative Prime Minister—and a Government comprised of right hon. and hon. Gentleman who have sought to reform the parliamentary system to create greater fairness and transparency—continued to allow this outrageous situation to continue.

Mark Durkan: I welcome Government amendments 1 and 2. I want to acknowledge the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who championed amendment 1 at an earlier stage of the Bill. I recall that at one point on that day, she thought she would not be able to divide the House, because she did not have Tellers; we guaranteed her Tellers if the amendment went to a Division. I also want to acknowledge the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who put his name to the amendment and took an active part in the discussion, as a conscientious legislator and a person of consistency. I recall that on that day, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) was very strident in pressing the Government to see the sense of the amendment, and in rejecting their arguments against it.
	I am glad that the Government have found that there was consensus on the issue, but it was a new, revised consensus, induced by the fact that we had Divisions on the subject in Committee of the whole House. Clearly, very different messages were being given before that, including in evidence to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. It is one of the occasions on which debate in the House brought about change, not just in Government thinking but in how parties responded and saw those issues by understanding how they were regarded by others. The public are vexed about the lack of transparency and the readiness of too many parties constantly to use security considerations to deny scrutiny, which is treated as a matter of course elsewhere.
	The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) has looked more widely at the issue of political donations, and we need to look at anything else that needs to be
	tightened up at any other level. I am particularly alert to the need to allow an active and positive interest by members of the wider Irish diaspora and by democrats throughout the island of Ireland, but that should never allow for any dubious corporate donations or anything else. It is quite clear that the ambit of measures in relation to donations to Northern Ireland has been cynically abused, and it does not match funding that would be allowed elsewhere. Again, for the sake of consistency, without transgressing any legitimate interest of the wider Irish diaspora, including the very recent diaspora, I would point out the need for balance.
	Government amendment 2 is a sensible measure, as the provisions of clause 28 would impose quite a scramble and some difficulty on local electoral officers, so it makes sense to kick forward the commencement date.

Andrew Robathan: I had forgotten what a vexed issue donations are—perhaps I should have remembered—whether from Michael Brown or one or two Labour donors. I can name them if the House wants. Indeed, we have had the odd one in our own party.

Stephen Pound: Asil Nadir.

Andrew Robathan: Funnily enough, his name crossed my mind, but let us go on to Lord Levy. Did he not give a lot of money?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We will stick with what is before us.

Andrew Robathan: Right. I had simply forgotten what a vexed issue donations are, and I think we would all agree that we wish to move to the greatest transparency possible.

Ivan Lewis: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not want to bracket Lord Levy with Michael Brown and Asil Nadir who, as I understand it, are convicted criminals.

Andrew Robathan: I did not bracket them at all, except to say that there have been vexed issues over donations to each major party. The hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friend—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are going to move on. The point has been made on both sides of the House, and we do not want to get bogged down. I am sure that the Members from Northern Ireland want to get to the meat of the issue.

Andrew Robathan: I meant no disrespect to any Member of the House of Lords on that matter, although one or two of them have had a few problems. [Interruption.] I will if you want.
	The vexed issue of donations stretches across the Irish sea and, indeed, across the Atlantic, as we have heard from the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). We would all wish to move to greater transparency. We have moved in Great Britain to increased transparency, which is absolutely right. I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said about people declaring their donations quite happily to the Alliance party. There is a special situation in Northern Ireland—we know that, which is why we are discussing the Bill—but we want to
	move forward with consensus to normality above all else. That has to be done slowly—we know why—and the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) said that it should be a case of one step forward. I think that that is the right way to go.
	The right hon. Member for Belfast North wants to go further. Donations from America, as I understand it, must be made either by Irish citizens or by an Irish company carrying on one or more principal activities on the island of Ireland. [Interruption.] I have been told to lay off anyone going to jail, but I could name another one who is in the news today.
	Finally, may I tell the hon. Member for Belfast East that I did not serve on the Bill Committee, but I understand that her amendment was resisted at the time. I hope that she realises as the single member of a single-Member party in the House that the Government listens. We have listened to her, and essentially we have accepted her amendment.
	Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause 28
	 — 
	Commencement

Amendment made: 2,page18, leave out lines 1 to 3. —(Mr Robathan.)
	Third Reading

Andrew Robathan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I should like to begin by thanking my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who was in the Chamber earlier, for his work in preparing this Bill and steering it through the House. My task today has been greatly eased by the work that he has done in explaining the contents of the Bill to the House. I should also like to thank speakers from all parts of the House—from the four parties of Northern Ireland represented in the Chamber today—for their constructive contributions to debates on the Bill. [Interruption.] Three parties and an independent, I am sorry. I have looked carefully at the earlier debates, and I think the House has done an excellent job on the Bill. While we have not always agreed on amendments, there has been a great deal of consensus on much of its contents.
	As many hon. Members have noted, this is not a Bill that makes radical changes to the architecture of government in Northern Ireland. It has been described variously as a “tapas Bill”, a “portmanteau Bill”, and a “bouillabaisse Bill”. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), in his inimitable way, has even suggested that some would see it as a “bits and pieces” Bill. I welcome that sort of Bill, because I would describe it as a Bill for more normal times. In the past, Northern Ireland Bills have made fundamental changes to government in Northern Ireland, or have been introduced in response to political crises. This Bill supports the development of the devolved institutions. The emphasis now has to be not on further radical institutional departures, but on delivery—chiefly delivery by the institutions in Northern Ireland, but with our support—on reducing community division and on economic renewal. That is the keystone of our approach to Northern Ireland.
	If I may be allowed a personal note, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am newly arrived back in Northern Ireland, although as some hon. Members will know, I spent time in an earlier incarnation there. Indeed, I spent the best part of a year in west Belfast, defending, as I saw it, people of the community of Northern Ireland, whether they were from a nationalist, Unionist, Protestant or Catholic background—I was defending them all—against the scourge of terrorism, and I am proud of having done so.
	In my view of the past, and in my hopes for Northern Ireland’s constitutional future, I, too, have a past, shaped by my experience, which has shaped my views. For now, my aim is to work with all the politicians in the Northern Ireland Executive to help them to deliver the benefits to which the agreements have opened the way. The Bill is consistent with that approach. It clears the decks of a number of relatively small, but important, matters, to smooth the way for better delivery aimed at Northern Ireland’s future peace and prosperity. The changes that the Bill makes are not radical, but they are important. Northern Ireland is now moving in the right direction.

Lady Hermon: I am very flattered indeed that the Minister should regard me as a party in my own right. I am an independent Member but it is always lovely to be unanimous with myself.
	The Minister will know that a key provision of the Bill is to move the scheduled election date for the Northern Ireland Assembly. By statute, the Assembly should be elected every four years, but that term has been extended. Will he kindly give a guarantee to the people of Northern Ireland that the House regards that as a rarity? In fact, when there is a statutory lifetime of a devolved Assembly that should be changed very rarely indeed.

Andrew Robathan: I am delighted that the hon. Lady is unanimous with herself. I did not mean to portray her as a party, but rather as an individual independent.
	On the substantive issue, as an historian I remember the Septennial Act 1715, which extended the life of the Westminster Parliament and was rightly disparaged over the years. Extending the life of any assembly or Parliament should be done with great care and only in exceptional circumstances. I, like the hon. Lady, am a democrat and I do not think we should go that way, but on this occasion there is general consensus that that is probably the right way forward.
	It would have been inconceivable a decade ago to consider hosting world leaders in Northern Ireland for the G8 summit. I remember that when the Prime Minister announced it, some people said, “That’s a bit dodgy,” but it worked extremely well and I pay tribute to the people of Northern Ireland, who made it such a successful G8 summit. It would have been inconceivable a decade ago to present the Turner prize in Northern Ireland. It would have been inconceivable that hundreds of thousands of visitors would travel to Northern Ireland for events like the world police and fire games this summer.
	The passing of this Bill through the House marks a further step towards normalisation for Northern Ireland. This is the first Bill since the imposition of direct rule in 1972 which has not been enacted in haste, as a result of
	a political crisis or to implement a political agreement. Instead, it has been subject to public consultation, pre-legislative scrutiny and thorough scrutiny following the usual timetable in this House. It is something to celebrate that we are now able to consider matters thoroughly and without the urgency that has been a feature of previous Bills, and although I have attended only this sitting on the Bill, I might say that we have been able to discuss it with good humour, which is also important. I commend the Bill to the House.

Stephen Pound: I reiterate the comments made by the Minister of State about the good spirit in which the debate has been conducted. We have been considering matters of great moment—matters of state, matters of considerable importance, but it has been done overall, I hope, in a good and positive atmosphere.
	May I trespass upon your good nature, which is legendary, Mr Deputy Speaker, by adding my own tribute to the late Eddie McGrady? When I attended his funeral in Downpatrick last Thursday, as I went up past McGrady’s estate agents, turned round at McGrady’s accountants, arrived at the cathedral to meet Father Fergal McGrady, son of Malachy McGrady, it occurred to me that possibly there was somebody in Downpatrick who was not a McGrady, but I did not find them. I was privileged to sit with Arlene Foster, who represented the DUP very well. Between the Secretary of State and Arlene Foster was none other than the present hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), who is not, as I know it, a McGrady, though she was considered and referred to as a protégée of the great McGrady.
	May I, once more trespassing on your legendary good nature and good will, Mr Deputy Speaker, add my sympathies to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) for the occurrence that took place over the weekend, which she has typically and characteristically responded to with enormous courage? She is here tonight to support what may be Government amendment 1, but is in fact the hon. Lady’s amendment 1. She has done that extremely well and successfully. For somebody who considered the matter in a Statutory Instrument Committee, to see it come to fruition on the Floor of the House is a great tribute not just to the good sense and good will of the House, but particularly to the driving force of the hon. Lady.
	We heard from the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson). He could have spoken more—I recommend to any Member the Committee’s full report on the draft Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. It should not be forgotten that a great deal of the business that is affected by this legislation has not been discussed on the Floor of the House tonight and has not been amended. Although the expression “a bits and pieces Bill” may seem a trifle crude, the Bill is a glorious melange, a coming together of so many different aspects, all overseen with a golden thread of positivity.
	Let us not forget that the Bill deals with political donations, dual mandates, the position of the Justice Minister, electoral registration, equality duties and even the regulation of biometric data. We have considered so many of these—the fixed terms, the length of the current Assembly term—and we have arrived at the end with, I like to think, a strong degree of consensus, which is
	again a tribute to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, its present Chairman and its members, who I see are well represented in the House tonight.
	On the first group of amendments, new clauses 1 and 2, we heard from the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). I have immense sympathy with the points that he makes. The hardest task that any of us who is involved even peripherally with the affairs of Northern Ireland must face is the legacy issue—the issue of dealing with the past. It overhangs everything we do. All our deliberations must be seen in that context. Just to listen to some of the names and some of the atrocities that the hon. Gentleman mentioned reminded us—those of us who needed reminding, and I rather doubt that any of us do need reminding—that we will always have to be aware of the full horror, the monstrosity of the past, which lurks over our shoulder at all times.
	However, tonight we have heard a little bit of good news which points us in the direction of consensus. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), as ever, spoke from the heart and spoke with great emotion. None of us in the House could ever have anything less than utter respect, regard and understanding of the pain and the agony that he and his family and many members of his community have suffered, yet we are here today in a democratic House, undertaking democratic legislation to make life better for a group of people who have not been well served in the past.
	If there is one thing that we must recognise as binding together everything that we have done tonight, it is, as the Minister said, that the Bill is an indication of progression. We are moving forward into a safer, more inclusive and shared future. It may seem that much of the content of Bills is minutiae—a minor matter. There is nothing of minor matter in the politics of Northern Ireland. Every single aspect of the Bill is crucial and has great significance beyond this House. I like to think that what has emerged here this evening is at the very least a signpost on the way to a better and a shared future. All Members of the House should take some credit for that achievement here tonight.
	There is important Back-Bench business to be taken. My natural loquacity will be limited, if not choked, on this occasion. I would like to say more and there is probably more to be said, but I shall end by saying that the House has done Parliament, democracy and above all the people of Northern Ireland a great service tonight. I am proud to be a Member of the House that agreed this Bill this evening.

Nigel Dodds: I would like to say it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), but it is very difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman. Once again, I welcome what he said and the way that he said it, with his customary humour and good grace.
	I welcome the Minister to his place and wish him well. We look forward to working with him. I formally put on record our condolences to the SDLP and to the people of South Down on the sad loss of Eddie McGrady, who was a very decent and honourable representative for all the people of South Down. I have expressed my sentiments privately and I have written to the SDLP, but I want to put that formally on the record. He was a true outstanding example of what a Member of Parliament and an elected representative should be.
	I also want to put on record our condemnation of the attack on the offices of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long). I note that my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) has tabled a motion for debate today in the Northern Ireland Assembly condemning that and other attacks. He made the point that whether these evil acts have a loyalist or republican label, they are equally wrong, regardless of who is responsible. I think that all hon. Members will endorse that. We as democrats must stand up against attacks. Members of my party and of the SDLP, and members of other parties and of no party, have had their person, their offices and their property attacked previously, simply because they stood up and expressed a point of view in a democratic way. It is scandalous that anyone should be targeted for doing that.
	We welcome the Bill. It is limited in scope, but nevertheless it deals with some important matters. We wish it had gone further in relation to party donations and the point that I raised in relation to a glaring loophole, but no doubt we will return to that at some point. I welcome the fact that the election for the Northern Ireland Assembly has been brought into line with those for Scotland and Wales. We now have an equal situation for the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. The Government have been sensible and right to do that. There are the new arrangements for the Minister of Justice and the Assembly’s power to reduce the number of MLAs, which we certainly want to see. There are far too many Assembly Members in Northern Ireland, and the number needs to be reduced.
	We recognise that other more substantive issues need to be debated and for which provision needs to be made. We hope that after the Haass talks and further consideration in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee we will be in a position to come forward with some kind of consensus on major issues and debate them further and, if necessary, legislate for them in this House.

Margaret Ritchie: I welcome the opportunity to speak on Third Reading. We had a good debate on Second Reading and during part of the Committee stage in this Chamber in June, and my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) took the Bill forward in Committee. Tonight we discussed further amendments on Report and now we have the Third Reading debate.
	In contributing to the debate, as Member of Parliament for South Down I want to thank all Members on the Front and Back Benches and across various parties for the tribute that they have paid tonight to the former hon. Member for South Down, Eddie McGrady, who passed away last Monday afternoon in Down hospital. I worked for and with Eddie for many years, and I, like other hon. Members here tonight, always found him a man of considerable integrity, hard work, dedication and commitment to all his constituents without fear or favour. He represented the true hallmarks of what a Member of Parliament should be, at a time in Northern Ireland when it was difficult to engage in that particular role because of ongoing violence, ongoing deaths, ongoing threats and the ongoing murder of many of his constituents, some of whom I have already referred to in this debate. He condemned all of those unequivocally, because he always believed that the principle of democracy must
	reign. He, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle and many other party members, participated faithfully in the negotiations on the Good Friday agreement, because we firmly believed that that was the pathway and the direction of travel to the resolution of our conflict, bringing about a final political settlement on the island of Ireland, espousing the relationships between Unionists and nationalists in the north, between the north and south of the island and between Britain and Ireland, which were characterised by the political institutions that were established as a result of the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
	On behalf of my party and my SDLP colleagues in this House, I condemn the terrible and horrendous attack yet again on the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) and on her constituency office. Such attacks are an affront to the democratic process and to democracy. Again, I emphasise that this House and all Members adhere to the principle of democracy, and we want that to reign supreme. Those who carry out such acts of violence are reprehensible, and their deeds are reprehensible.
	The Bill, with its 29 clauses, is being debated at a time, as the Minister said, when there has been no particular crisis in Northern Ireland. It simply reflects a movement in the democratic process in Northern Ireland. We in the SDLP—my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle, for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) and me—would like to have enhanced the Bill with the inclusion of clauses to deal with the past, which is currently the subject of the Haass talks, bringing back the whole issue of petitions of concern to what they were meant to be under the Good Friday agreement of 1998, and the whole area of statutory duties with regard to good relations. We welcome the greater level of transparency in relation to donations and the Government’s further commitment tonight on that, which was originally brought forward by the hon. Member for Belfast East.
	In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle and I raised the issues to do with dual mandate. We asked for that area of the dual mandate to be extended to the Lords and Seanad Eireann in the Republic of Ireland, because that would be more comprehensive and would deal with the issue in a much fuller way.
	In Committee, I tabled amendments on the length of the Assembly mandate, which has been referred to tonight by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). We believe that the extension of the Assembly term from four to five years is undemocratic, because Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, who fought the election in May 2011, those Members who were elected, and those people who voted for all candidates in that election, did so for a four-year term, not a five-year term. I understand the Government’s wish for synchronisation, so that matters concur with what is happening in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but we in the SDLP are clear that that is a disruption to the democratic process and to the principle of democracy. On Second Reading, I referred to the mystery tour, and why that decision had been taken. When the Secretary of State, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and other organs of political activity in Northern Ireland were supporting a four-year term, why was it automatically changed to a five-year term?
	So far I have not received a sufficiently adequate answer to that mystery or puzzle. Perhaps the Minister will be able to elucidate that tonight.

Gregory Campbell: Does the hon. Lady agree that whatever the pros and cons of the delay of the election to the Northern Ireland Assembly, whether or not it is delayed for a year could hardly be categorised as an issue of burning interest among the people in Northern Ireland?

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The people of Northern Ireland fully subscribe to the principles of democracy and, I think, contrary to what he says, would be concerned about that.
	In conclusion, although the political process in Northern Ireland has moved on and there is now a concentration on the social, health and economic agenda, we want to see those processes built on. We want to see total delivery for the people of Northern Ireland through the Northern Ireland Assembly. We want to see an Assembly and an Executive that are actually working for the people on all the issues that matter, rather than some of the sterile debates and decisions that have taken place in recent months.
	We want the British and Irish Governments to work with the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive on energy, economic development, urban regeneration, jobs and the economy, because we all—I am sure that this applies to all parties from Northern Ireland represented here—want to see delivery for the people in relation to Treasury and fiscal matters. We want to see our tourism protected. In that regard, and in advance of the autumn statement, there is a need for VAT on tourism to complement the level it is at in the Republic of Ireland, because we do not want our tourism industry, our jobs and our economy—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Margaret Ritchie: In conclusion, after that slight detour— I am back on track, Mr Deputy Speaker—in relation to the general principles of the Bill, we look forward to a positive solution from the Haass talks on issues relating to flags, emblems, the past and victims, some of which we would have liked to have been addressed by new clauses in the Bill, but I am pleased to have been able to participate this evening.

Naomi Long: I will take this opportunity to welcome the Minister of State to his new post. It has been an experience getting to know him slightly better this evening. It is good that we have been able to make some progress during what I think has been, with regard to outcomes, quite a positive evening.
	I also want to express my personal sympathy, and that of my party, to the SDLP and the McGrady family on the passing of Eddie McGrady. He was a gentleman, someone with integrity, and he served his whole community without fear or favour. I know how closely the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) worked with Eddie McGrady and so particularly want to pass on my personal condolences to her at what must be a very difficult time. He was very highly thought of right across the community in Northern Ireland, and that
	cannot be claimed of many people. He was distinguished by that and by many other things he did while a Member of this House.
	There is much to commend in the Bill. However, in line with the convention that we should save the best until last, I will focus first on some of the matters about which I am still discontent. As I stated earlier, I am disappointed that donations were not addressed more fully at this stage in the Bill’s progress, with regard to both moving towards full transparency and addressing the issue the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) raised on overseas donors and the lack of transparency. I think that the time has come for us to build on the progress we have made in Northern Ireland and show confidence in that progress, and I believe that in order to do that we must be courageous in the decisions we make as politicians. Part of that has to be about taking on responsibility for transparency and accountability and the normal standards of public life that apply everywhere else. It would be a huge step forward if progress could be made on that.
	I am also disappointed that we have been unable to address as fully as I had wished the issue of dual mandates between the Assembly and Seanad Eireann and between the Assembly and the House of Lords. I have had some success this evening, so I will chance my arm and ask for some more. One of the reasons for not addressing the issue in relation to Seanad Eireann in Committee of the whole House was that there was soon to be a referendum on abolishing it. The referendum failed to abolish the Seanad, so it is an ongoing concern that people can still be Members of the Assembly and the Seanad. I ask the Government, in the light of that development, to consider revisiting the matter when the Bill moves to another place.
	I want to welcome progress made in the Bill on four matters. First, I welcome the progress in addressing the anomaly of the appointment of the Justice Minister, which currently advantages my party but would advantage any party that found itself in receipt of that post. It is unfair and, we believe, unbalances the situation. That is something we have raised and worked with other parties to find a solution to, so we are pleased to see it resolved in the Bill.
	I also welcome the legislative footing for the end to dual mandates. It is a matter on which a number of parties made commitments before the last Westminster elections, but only now are we slowly beginning to see some progress. I believe that the Bill’s passage through the House has concentrated minds on the issue. I believe
	that putting that on a legislative footing will ensure that those commitments will be met by all the parties that made them, which I welcome.
	I also welcome the regularising of the Assembly’s terms to avoid future clashes with Westminster elections. I regret that that could not be done before the last Assembly elections so that the public would have known that they were electing an Assembly for a five-year term. However, I think that on balance it is better that we regularise it now, rather than having the kinds of ad hoc changes to Assembly dates that we had previously, when people were never quite sure when Assembly elections would take place. It almost appeared as though our elections in Northern Ireland were not as valuable or important as elections to other places. It is important that that has been regularised. It will allow people to focus properly on Westminster issues for Westminster elections and Assembly issues for Assembly elections.
	I also welcome the move to remove permanent anonymity for donors from January. I want to put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for his support for the amendments we tabled in Committee. He ensured that mine was not a lone voice on the matter and that at least there would have been two of us to act as Tellers, even if there was no one to count. I was pleased that he was willing to do that and thank him for it.
	I am pleased about those matters not just because they are ones on which I have campaigned, but because I believe they mark an improvement in the democratic process for the people of Northern Ireland and the people I represent in east Belfast. Huge progress has been made in Northern Ireland—Members have reflected on that this evening—but we still have a long way to go in achieving the normality we wish to see. Indeed, the events of recent days and weeks suggest that there are still those, both loyalist and republican, who would seek to deflect us from doing that. It is our duty as elected representatives to make politics work, to aspire to the highest standards in public life and to restore the relationship between us as elected representatives and those we represent, to engender their trust and confidence and to demonstrate that politics is the only way forward and that it is a practical and effective way to make our views known and heard. I believe that the Bill will move politics forward in Northern Ireland and improve the working of the system there. I am pleased to be able to support it.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Energy Bill (Carry-Over Extension)

Michael Fallon: I beg to move,
	That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Energy Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended by 13 weeks until 27 February 2014.
	The Energy Bill, which is due its Third Reading in the other place tomorrow, was introduced in this House on 29 November 2012. As set out in Standing Order No. 80A, as a carry-over Bill it will fall if it does not receive Royal Assent within 12 months of its First Reading, and that date is now approaching. Given the strong support for the Bill on Third Reading in this House, when 396 hon. Members voted in favour and only eight opposed it, it is only right for us to safeguard against this.
	The Bill is a large and significant one that has properly received a great deal of scrutiny in this House and in the other place. Fundamentally, it is vital for securing the United Kingdom’s energy future and ensuring that the crucial investment in energy infrastructure that we need over the next decade comes forward. That investment will be incentivised by the provisions in the Bill to reform the electricity market—the most significant reform since electricity privatisation. The Bill contains a number of other important provisions, including putting people on the cheapest tariff, tougher consumer redress, tackling fuel poverty, and strengthening nuclear regulation.
	The Government remain committed to securing Royal Assent by the end of the year. The extension to the end of February simply allows for a sensible contingency. Let me assure Members across the House that extending the time for considering the Bill will not have a detrimental effect on the timetable for electricity market reform. We remain on track for publishing the final electricity market reform delivery plan and for contracts for difference to be available from next year.
	This Bill is vital for investment and for security of supply. Of course it is right that we should allow its parliamentary passage to continue, and I look forward to the House’s co-operation in this matter.

Tom Greatrex: I am pleased to be able to address the House on this brief but significant piece of business. I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation of the Government’s reasons for seeking to extend the time available for consideration of the Energy Bill, and for his making it clear that they still intend that it should receive Royal Assent by the end of the calendar year. He was not in post at the time, as he will recall, but I am sure he was familiar with our deliberations in Committee, where it was made clear that that was the Government’s intention after the Bill had been subject to some delay.
	May I press the Minister on whether he intends that the amendments made in another place, where the Bill will have its Third Reading tomorrow, will be debated before or after the Chancellor’s autumn statement on 5 December? Of course, the Minister is not part of the Government’s business management team, but it is important for the House to know which will be the case.
	Some significant issues were raised during the debates on the important amendments made in the Lords, most notably on the amendment from the Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Teverson, which I understand involved a licensed rebellion against the Government by Liberal Democrats. Not for the first time, the Energy Secretary was non-committal when asked about this recently. Will the Minister therefore update the House on the Government’s attitude to the Lords amendment? If he cannot tell us that, perhaps he could give us his own opinion on the matter.
	The Minister may be aware that last week, the devolved Parliament in Edinburgh undertook to provide an emergency statement on electricity market reform in relation to Government Lords amendment 66. The Westminster Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), is not in his place this evening, but the Edinburgh SNP energy spokesman suggested that it was a constitutional outrage that there had been no prior discussion with the devolved Government. There is currently a predilection towards creating grievance and diversion in Edinburgh that I hope we will be rid of in less than a year’s time. Nevertheless, will the Minister explain whether there has been any discussion with devolved Administrations about the closure of the renewables obligation? He is well aware, as I am, that about a third of the financial support for renewable energy in the UK goes to Scotland, which has less than 10% of the consumer base. It is spread across the board in Britain, which works in all our interests—we share the risks and rewards. The Scottish National party asserts that that will continue post separation if those of us in Scotland vote that way, for reasons I still fail to understand, next September. Will the Minister be clear on discussions with devolved Administrations? Powers relating to the promotion of renewable energy currently exist in the Scottish Parliament.
	This is an important Bill which, as the Minister said, we supported on Third Reading. We expressed reservations on some areas of energy policy that have not been addressed, but it is an important, much-delayed and much-needed Bill. We do not intend to oppose the motion and hope the Government do everything they can to ensure that its passage is complete before the end of the calendar year, as the Minister indicated. Industry and the investment community need to get on with the urgent work of renewing our energy infrastructure and capacity in a low carbon, sustainable way for the future.

Christopher Chope: As someone who voted against the Bill on Third Reading, I will not oppose the time extension. The later the Bill is put on the statute book—if it is put on the statute book—the more grateful I will be. It is significant that on Second Reading in the other place, my noble Friend Lord Lawson made one of the finest speeches in any debate in recent times. He was absolutely dismissive of much of the content of the Bill.
	This evening’s short debate presents me with the opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister what, if anything, will be done to respond to Japan’s recently announced initiative to abandon its climate change targets? That follows the decision by the Australian Government and, earlier, by the Canadians. What does my right hon. Friend think are the implications for the
	assumed international consensus? Has it been altered by those recent decisions? Where will that leave us if we are justifying imposing significant increases in the price of electricity for consumers on the basis that we are setting an example and leading the world in our opposition to global warming and in our determination to reduce carbon emissions? That leadership does not seem to have resulted in anything significant. Indeed, it seems to be going in the opposite direction.
	I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend gave some indication of how the Government will respond to what has happened in Japan. Japan is where the Kyoto agreement was negotiated. The consequence of the Japanese redefinition of its targets will probably be more carbon dioxide emissions, and we will not be able do anything about that. If we turned off all the lights, closed down all our heating systems and did not use any energy at all, we would still not be able to counter the consequences of the recent Japanese decision. Does that not show that, far from being able to lead the world, the political climate in the rest of the world is changing and we are slow to react to that?

Peter Bone: I assume the thrust of my hon. Friend’s argument is that an extension will allow more time for that to be debated.

Christopher Chope: I hope so, yes. I am enthusiastically supporting the Bill in the hope that wiser counsel will ultimately prevail and the Bill will be revised significantly before it reaches the statute book.

Sammy Wilson: Like the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), I, too, as one of those who voted against the Energy Bill, hope that the extension will give the Government the opportunity to look again at the targets set in it and at the policy they seem to be following, which appear to be at odds with the Prime Minister’s commitments and the concerns expressed by the Opposition about fuel poverty, the cost of energy and the increasing difficulties that people in this country have, week to week, in meeting their energy bills.
	Just this week, there have been discussions in Poland about climate change policy, but the Polish Government have made it clear that they intend to keep on burning coal. As the hon. Member for Christchurch said, the targets in the Bill, for which an extension is now sought, seem to be at odds not only with what has been said by other European nations, including Poland and Germany, but with what is happening in other parts of the world. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity afforded by the extension to consider the direction of energy policy—the commitments the Government are now making to look at the cost of energy, and the Opposition’s attempts to pillory the Government over that issue—so that we do not go down such a route. There is a certain irony in the Opposition, who have been complaining the most about energy prices, supporting such an energy policy in debates in the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The motion is very narrow and I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to run a little, but I do not want to get down into Opposition policy, because we are not discussing that. I am sure that he is now coming to the end.

Sammy Wilson: I will not be roaming, I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker—I would be in trouble when I go back home if I get too close to Rome.
	The point I am emphasising is that we have an opportunity for reconsideration. In the light of comments made in debates in this House and the other place, and the concerns we know people across the United Kingdom have about the cost of energy, we have an opportunity to ask ourselves whether the policy in the Bill to rely increasingly on renewables, which is the most expensive form of electricity generation, while turning our backs on some of the cheaper forms of electricity generation, which is not being done—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think—[Interruption.] No, Mr Wilson, you will sit down for a moment. The bottom line is that the motion relates to an extension of time. I have allowed a little leeway, of which you have now taken complete advantage, but I am sure that you have now finished.

Michael Fallon: With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me say to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) that I am grateful to him for supporting the Bill, particularly on the grounds that, as I think he said, the investment it brings forward is urgently needed. Why would that be? Because the years of neglect mean that we have rapidly had to address the missing investment in our infrastructure. I am, none the less, grateful for his support.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me three specific questions. First, he asked when the amendments made in another place are likely to be considered. I cannot confirm the exact date. That is a matter for the usual channels, and it will be announced shortly. I can, however, tell him that we are absolutely determined—I know he shares that determination—to make sure that the legislation reaches the statute book by our original deadline of Christmas.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked about the amendment passed in the other place on the application of the emissions performance standards to coal-fired plant. He described that as a “licensed rebellion” but I do not recognise that term. Indeed, I am not sure what that is, as I have not heard of it in this place or, indeed, in the other place, so he needs to look into that in a little more detail. We will set out our position on all the amendments made in the other place when we come to consider them shortly.
	Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman asked about the Scottish Minister’s remarks about the back-stop to end the renewables obligation in Scotland, along with its ending in England, by March 2017. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to make it clear that that point had been discussed at length with the Scottish Government before that Minister’s remarks in the Scottish Parliament this week. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the Scottish Government about it. It has been discussed with them and there is nothing new in the amendment we have tabled.
	Finally, let me respond to the two substantive points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), both of whom opposed the Bill on Third Reading, as they were entitled to do. The change
	in the position of the Japanese Government on climate change will of course be discussed at the annual review meeting in Warsaw next week, which will be attended by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Governments do adapt their positions on these matters from time to time. I assure my hon. Friend that this country will play a leading part in those negotiations.
	My hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman spoke about the price that our constituents are paying. They will of course welcome the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to examine the green levies that are applied on top of the price of electricity to ensure that the burden is no greater than is necessary, that the levies are being spread fairly across the population and that the recent increases in electricity bills will not be repeated.
	With those reassurances, I hope that the House will pass the motion.
	Question put and agreed to.

PETITIONS

Rural Fair Share Campaign

George Freeman: I would like to hand in a Rural Fair Share campaign petition for my constituency of Mid Norfolk.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Mid Norfolk,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that the Local Government Finance Settlement is unfair to rural communities; notes that the Rural Penalty sees urban areas receive 50% more support per head than rural areas despite higher costs in rural service delivery; and opposes the planned freezing of this inequity in the 2013–14 settlement for six years until 2020.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reduce the Rural Penalty in staged steps by at least 10% by 2020.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001267]

Rory Stewart: I have the honour to present the petition of the residents of Penrith and the Border on the local government finance settlement.
	Following is the full text of the petition:
	[The Petition of residents of Penrith and the Border,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that the Local Government Finance Settlement is unfair to rural communities; notes that the Rural Penalty sees urban areas receive 50% more support per head than rural areas despite higher costs in rural service delivery; and opposes the planned freezing of this inequity in the 2013–14 settlement for six years until 2020.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reduce the Rural Penalty in staged steps by at least 10% by 2020.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P001269]

WELLINGBOROUGH PRISON SITE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

Peter Bone: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the proposed sale of the Wellingborough prison site and for being granted this Adjournment debate so early on by Mr Speaker. I am pleased to be joined by my hon. Friends the Members for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris). I thank Eliza Richardson, my researcher, for all her efforts in preparing this speech and for the extra hours she has put in.
	I thank the prisons Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), for taking the time to be present this evening. As was said recently in the House of Commons, and as was endorsed by the Secretary of State for Justice,
	“we have a most excellent prisons Minister who has many superb qualities… One of the best of his qualities is that when he has made a decision and new facts are put to him, he has the courage to reconsider and change his decision.”—[Official Report, 12 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 799.]
	I agree totally with that endorsement.
	I shall start by talking about the sorry history of how we have got to this situation. When the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) was Secretary of State for Justice, he had the kindness and respect for Parliament to phone me from Downing street one day at 6 am to state that Wellingborough prison was going to be put out for market testing and that he would be making a statement in the House of Commons later that day. He answered my questions privately and I was in a position to ask a sensible question when he made his statement.
	I worked with prison officers, management and members of the public to improve Wellingborough prison and to put in an excellent public sector bid. I would particularly praise the prison officers for going against union advice and co-operating with the project. Wellingborough was so improved that it was the third-cheapest prison in the country and the Ministry of Justice decided not to privatise it. So all was well; the prison operated efficiently and with the support of the local community.
	But then, without warning, on 17 July 2012, the last sitting day of Parliament before the summer recess, the then Secretary of State for Justice announced the proposed closure of Wellingborough prison. I was given no warning of the decision and found out about it only during a live BBC radio interview. In my opinion, that was a totally unacceptable divergence from parliamentary protocol and utterly disrespectful to me as a local Member of Parliament, but more importantly it was disrespectful to my constituents.
	I immediately applied for an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 24. In turning down my request, Mr Speaker made it clear that it would not be possible to grant it as the House was going into recess the next day. The then Secretary of State kindly wrote me a handwritten letter apologising for what had happened and saying that it should never have occurred. That was followed by a debate in Westminster Hall on 5 September 2012—I think it was the prisons Minister’s
	first debate—in which I made clear my displeasure at the appalling handling of the situation. He said:
	“The way in which he heard about the announcement of the closure is, as he said, profoundly unacceptable. It should not have happened, and I apologise to him for that.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2012; Vol. 549, c. 125WH.]
	He was also kind enough to visit the prison and see its potential for growth.
	I also presented a petition on 4 September 2012 from many residents of Wellingborough and the surrounding area against the closure of the prison. On 13 March 2013, a press notice from the Cabinet Office announced that HMP Wellingborough had been sold, but after an emergency question the prisons Minister said the site had not been sold and that it had been a clerical error. There were also a number of private meetings with him and the Secretary of State.
	Given this history, one would have thought that the Ministry of Justice would be extremely sensitive about making any changes to the Wellingborough prison site without contacting and discussing the matter with me, the local MP. One would have thought there would be huge red flags on both the file and computers saying, “Make sure the local MP knows what’s happening”. That makes the events of the last few weeks completely baffling.
	On 3 September, I wrote to the prisons Minister requesting a meeting. I was going to bring along a local prison officer who had some radical ideas on how Wellingborough prison could be reopened. Apparently, that letter was lost in transit. In any event, I received no reply. Next, the Minister told me privately that he was writing to me to say the site of Wellingborough prison was to be sold. At the beginning of November, I received that letter, which was short and gave no indication of why the site was surplus to requirements.
	So yet again a decision about Wellingborough prison had been taken without consulting the local Member of Parliament. If the Department was considering selling the site, it should have discussed it with me in private so that at least I could have put my concerns and those of my constituents before a decision was reached. It is also unacceptable that this was done at a time when a request for a meeting was outstanding. In my view, this was yet again disrespectful not only to me, but to Parliament and my constituents.
	Tonight’s debate is not a party political matter, but one that directly affects the lives of many of my constituents. However, it is a debate about something that has national consequences. I will be arguing strongly for the Secretary of State for Justice’s policy on prisons. He recently said:
	“My intention is to have more adult male prison capacity available than we had in 2010 but at a much lower unit and overall cost. Our strategy for achieving this is to replace accommodation which is old, inefficient or has limited long-term strategic value with cheaper modern capacity which is designed to better meet the demand for prison places and supports our aim to drive down stubbornly high reoffending rates.”—[Official Report, 10 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 22WS.]
	I could not agree with that policy more: keep open and develop low-cost prisons and close expensive, Victorian prisons. What a splendid policy—one that any Conservative should be able to support, and a significant shift from the previous Secretary of State, whose policy seemed to be: “Close prisons and let’s hope the prison population falls.”
	As the Member of Parliament for Wellingborough, I could not be happier, as Wellingborough has the third cheapest prison in the country and the second cheapest in its category. Official Ministry of Justice figures show that the cost of a prison place in 2011-12 at Wellingborough was £17,894—the second cheapest out of all male category C prisons. Not only that, but the prison has significant room for expansion, a local population that supports it and a council that wants to encourage its development. It has a superb location as an overspill prison from London, yet is an easy location for the rest of the country. Wellingborough prison absolutely fits the Government’s policy. Terrific: another success story for the Conservative-led coalition. Er, well, no, I am afraid not. Instead of developing Wellingborough prison, the Justice Department first closes it and then, this month, decides to sell it. It flies completely in the face of the Department’s stated policy.
	Wellingborough prison lies midway between Bedford and Leicester prisons, 22 miles from Bedford and 45 miles from Leicester. The cost of a prison place in Bedford is £33,679 per person, while in Leicester it is £41,855. Let us compare that with the cost in Wellingborough, at £17,894. It does not take a rocket scientist to say that we should close Bedford and Leicester prisons and keep Wellingborough open. That is what should happen, if the Government policy was implemented. After all, the Secretary of State said we should
	“replace accommodation which is old, inefficient…with cheaper modern capacity”.—[Official Report, 10 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 22WS.]
	I do not understand why the prisons Minister does not want to support the Secretary of State in implementing this sensible Government policy—it is surely in his career interests to do so, if for no other reason.
	We will hear the argument tonight that Wellingborough prison is somehow located in the east midlands, where there is no shortage of prison places, and miles from London, where there is a huge lack of prison capacity. When that was suggested to me, I am sure I saw a fleet of flying pigs doing somersaults and belly laughing. Wellingborough prison has for a long time been an overflow prison for London. It is located 50 minutes from central London by train and has superb road links from the M1. However, it is just over an arbitrary line drawn by the Prison Service to say that it is in the east midlands. Wellingborough looks to London and is the ideal location to take surplus London prisoners.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on securing this debate but on the way he is delivering his excellent speech. I do not think any Member of Parliament could have mounted a better campaign in defence of their local prison than he has. I can confirm exactly what he has just said about the population of the prison largely coming from London. When I visited Wellingborough prison, it was fairly obvious that most of the inmates were from London, and many of his constituents will work in London. Wellingborough is only 70 miles from London, and if anyone goes down the high street in Wellingborough and says, “Where do you live?”, they will be told, “Wellingborough.” People will not say, “The east midlands”.

Peter Bone: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention and his support. He is absolutely right: this “east midlands” thing in Wellingborough is a sort of invention.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on making a good speech. He will know that in my Daventry constituency, we have two prisons: Onley and Rye Hill. If we were to draw a line from London as the crow flies, both would be further away than Wellingborough prison, and they, too, are pretty much full of prisoners who originate from the London region.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that, which is an issue I shall develop a little later in my speech.
	Wellingborough prison also has the huge advantage of being a very cheap area in which to build and develop. If that were not enough, the Wellingborough prison site has a massive amount of land for development, a proposed new road link to the A45, a community that supports and wants the prison, a council that is keen to see the prison develop and many prison officers living just minutes from the site.
	In addition, there is another difficulty for the Ministry of Justice in trying to sell the site. If the sale of land were to go ahead, there would be serious questions as to whether the Government would remain financially responsible for the prison-owned sewerage system on the site, which is used by the local housing estate. We could end up having to fork out more money for a site of which we are not even making use. I cannot see how that is cost-effective on any level. Much more than that, most of the prison is very modern and has, in fact, won prizes for its design. In the five-year period from 2004-05, an incredible £22.4 million was spent on the prison—all to be thrown away if the site is to be sold.
	Clearly, we have a golden opportunity to knock down the 1960s old prison blocks, to extend the existing modern blocks and facilities and to build new blocks within the existing boundaries. We should then implement new prison operational procedures, mix both state and private employees on the same site, allow prison officers to do the essential running of the prison, while allowing private contractors to carry out other functions. We would then have the cheapest prison in the country per prisoner place and a model new prison, which could be the basis for the rest of the prison estate and provide additional overflow capacity for London.

Philip Hollobone: Would my hon. Friend advise us on how many prisoners there were in Wellingborough prison?

Peter Bone: At the time, it had a capacity of 600, of which the overwhelming majority were from London.

Philip Hollobone: What, then, is my hon. Friend’s understanding of the extra investment that the Ministry said it needed to bring the prison up to what it regards as modern standards?

Peter Bone: That is a very good question. The figure of £50 million has been bandied around; I always think that when something is around the sum of £50 million, it cannot really be based on anything. That was for revamping the existing prison, but I am arguing for something different. I say we should knock down the old bit, which is the minority of the prison, and build new blocks to make a much bigger, cheaper prison, with a capacity of more like 1,000 prisoners.

Philip Hollobone: I am very interested to hear my hon. Friend’s answers. Earlier today, in the statement from the Secretary of State for Wales, it was confirmed that the Ministry of Justice is about to build a new prison in Wales for 1,000 prisoners at a capital cost of £250 million. My hon. Friend is telling us tonight, however, that the Government could have provided modern accommodation for 600 prisoners at a fraction of that cost.

Peter Bone: I thank my hon. Friend again. I would argue even further that for that investment, we could actually get 1,000 prisoners accommodated. Let me correct my hon. Friend on one issue, because I believe that the proposed prison in Wrexham is going to be for 2,000 prisoners. I shall comment on that later in my speech.
	Just for a moment, let us look at the London problem. The Ministry of Justice’s own figures say that it needs 18,000 prison places and has a capacity for 11,000. The prisons Minister will say that he is going to build a 2,500-place prison at Feltham. Well, even if that is possible, there will still be a shortage of 4,500 prison places. The prisons Minister may say that he is going to extend other London prisons, but—hand on heart—he knows that thousands of prisoners from London will have to be imprisoned outside of London. That is why the Wellingborough solution is such a sensible option. I hope that some of the extremely expensive Victorian London prisons will be closed, because that would make Wellingborough even more important.
	The Minister may have been sold the idea of super-duper prisons with places for 2,500 prisoners. That may be the whizz-bang new policy at the moment, but I believe that the strategy involves a great deal of risk. I think that there will be considerable management diseconomies of scale which would make such huge establishments exceptionally difficult to run. I also think it extremely unlikely that they would be opened on time. Indeed, I think that there would be much opposition to them, and that they might never be built.
	My argument, in a nutshell, is that Wellingborough prison is the right size for future development because of its location, because expanding it would be cheap, and because its running costs are very low. The Minister may say that his other plans render it surplus to requirements, but can he be sure of that? I do not think that he can, and I suggest that the prison site should remain on the Ministry of Justice estate for at least another 12 months. If by then the Minister is sure that all his plans are working and there is no need for the site to be retained, then let him go ahead and sell it; but if, as I believe, there are likely to be significant problems, let us look again at the possibility of opening and expanding Wellingborough.
	In short, keeping the Wellingborough option open is simply a sensible insurance policy.

Jeremy Wright: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) on securing the debate. Let me also congratulate him—as others have—on working so vigorously to secure the reopening of Her Majesty’s Prison Wellingborough, and, indeed, on representing his constituents as actively and effectively as he always does.
	I well remember debating the closure of the prison with my hon. Friend some 14 months ago. That was not just my first debate as prisons Minister, but my first day in the job. I put on record at that time, and I do so again today, the Government’s appreciation of the efforts of all who worked at Wellingborough. As I said then, any decision to close a prison is not made lightly, and is never easy. The decision to close this prison was not a reflection on either the work or the performance of the staff. As my hon. Friend pointed out, I said then—and I am happy to repeat—that the way in which he found out about the closure was profoundly unacceptable. He was entitled to an apology. As he knows, I gave him one on that occasion, but I am happy to repeat it.
	It is regrettable that the letter to which my hon. Friend referred, dated 3 September, was not received in my Department. We checked again after he spoke to me about it, but there is still no record of its having arrived. I regret that, because I think he knows me well enough to know that had I received it, and had it included—as it did—a request for a meeting, we would have had such a meeting. He also knows that I have taken every opportunity to speak to him and to give him what information I can about progress in relation to Wellingborough prison.
	The decision to close the prison followed an evaluation of every establishment on the prison estate, based on age and economic factors such as operating costs, outstanding maintenance issues and their proximity, and an operational assessment of the geographic and strategic function that the prisons performed. That included consideration of whether it would be difficult to replicate such functions elsewhere. According to those criteria, Wellingborough was chosen for closure.
	The fact is that parts of the site were in a poor state of repair. Its physical fabric, like that of other facilities that were built in the 1960s, had deteriorated over the years. It was not simply the accommodation that needed to be brought up to standard; many other improvements were required. It was increasingly unsafe, with poor services and infrastructure, poor electrics, and inadequate water pressure which failed to meet the required standards for the fighting of fires. It was in need of a substantial further investment of about £50 million. I know that my hon. Friend does not like round figures, so I shall give him the precise figure: it was £49.7 million, and that was for the full refurbishment that it needed in order to remain viable.
	As I said last September, the proximity and size of the financial liability forced the prison management to decide whether to proceed with the outstanding and necessary refurbishments—at a time when there was sufficient prison accommodation on the rest of the estate, and there were many other pressures on the Department’s budget—or to close the prison and use the capital to better effect elsewhere.
	On 4 September this year, my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary updated the House on our plans to modernise the prison estate so that we always have enough places for those sent to prison by the courts, but at much lower cost and in the right places, and on our plans to deliver on our ambition of reducing stubbornly high reoffending rates, and to do so in a way that gives taxpayers the best possible value for money.

Philip Hollobone: I am listening to my hon. Friend’s speech with great interest, in particular in respect of the figures. What is the Department’s assumption of capital
	cost per new prison place and how does the refurbishment of Wellingborough prison stack up in terms of that criterion?

Jeremy Wright: As I have already said, the cost of £50 million—or £49.7 million if we want to be precise—is the cost of bringing part of Wellingborough prison up to standard, so that is not a directly comparable figure in this regard. My hon. Friend may also know, as he may have heard this figure mentioned in the House earlier today, that we estimate that the cost of a new prison in Wrexham—which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough pointed out, will provide some 2,100 places, not 1,000—will be about £250 million. My maths is not good enough for me to do that sum, although perhaps the maths of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) is, but there is a clear problem with Wellingborough, which is that substantial capital investment would be required to bring it up to standard. This also has to be seen against the backdrop of what was a strategic consideration as to where those prison places would best be provided, and I will come on to that subject.

Philip Hollobone: rose—

Jeremy Wright: I sense that my hon. Friend wants me to give way again, and I am happy to do so.

Philip Hollobone: We have a lot of time this evening, so we can explore this subject in some detail, with the Speaker’s permission.
	It would seem from the figures my hon. Friend has just given the House that the cost for the refurbishment of Wellingborough prison is in the same ballpark as would be needed in new spend on a new prison, but the advantage of Wellingborough is that it is a prison that works and the community accepts it. One of the big difficulties about new prisons is getting the communities where they are built to accept all these prisoners in their midst.

Jeremy Wright: I can tell my hon. Friend that there is very considerable enthusiasm among the local authorities in the Wrexham area to have a new prison, and that is one of the reasons why we considered that to be a sensible site for the building of a new prison. Again, if my hon. Friend will be a little patient I will come on to the reasons why we consider that Wellingborough would not be the right site for the development of what would in effect be a substantially new prison.
	I was talking about the comments my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary made on 4 September. As I said, the intention is to deliver reduced reoffending rates in a way that delivers the best possible value for money for the taxpayer.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said, we are replacing accommodation that is old, inefficient or has limited long-term strategic value. Reshaping the rest of the prison estate will enable us to release offenders closer to home, which we know improves their resettlement and helps prevent reoffending. Linked intrinsically to this, a nationwide through-the-prison-gate resettlement service will be put in place, meaning that most offenders are given continuous support by one provider from custody into the community. We will support this by ensuring that most offenders are held in a prison designated
	to their area for at least three months before release. To achieve that we must have the best fit between custodial capacity and demand.
	We will open an additional 1,260 places in four new house blocks at HMPs Parc, Peterborough, the Mount and Thameside. The first of these at HMP the Mount is on track to accept prisoners in September 2014. The construction of the new prison in Wrexham, subject to planning approval, will offer 2,100 places when it is fully operational from late 2017. In addition, we are looking into replacing the existing Feltham young offenders site with a large new adult prison and a discrete new youth facility. It is our aim that we will have more adult male prison capacity in May 2015 than there was at the start of this Parliament. As a result of this new capacity coming on stream, we were able to announce the closure of a further four prisons, removing 1,400 uneconomic places from the prison estate, in addition to those closed earlier this year.
	It remains the Government’s intention to ensure that the prison system retains sufficient capacity and resilience to manage all those who are committed to custody by the courts. It is equally clear that the Government have a duty to their citizens to ensure that we make the best use of public funds. As I said in the earlier debate, the prison system is necessarily complex and it must be able to meet a variety of needs. That includes being able to receive new prisoners direct from courts throughout England and Wales, providing health care and education, tackling deep-rooted, dangerous and harmful behaviour and providing specialist interventions for particular groups of prisoners.
	Maintaining a wide geographical spread of prisons and a functional balance that meets the changing needs of the prison population is essential. By doing that, we remain able to carry out the punishments set by the courts, to maintain strong security to protect the public and to provide opportunities for different types of offenders in order to reduce the likelihood of their committing further crimes. Accordingly, individual prisons are robustly assessed to determine whether their closure is operationally viable before a recommendation is made. Such a recommendation was made in relation to Wellingborough, and the decision to close it was subsequently taken. That was because Wellingborough prison is located in a region with too many places and it did not perform a function that could not be replicated at other prisons. Furthermore, there were enough other prisons located nearby to allow us to avoid compulsory redundancies by redeploying staff.
	I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough disagrees with much of that. We met today to discuss the matter in more detail, and he argued that I should have considered Wellingborough as a London prison rather than an east midlands one. He has made that point again tonight. He suggested that Wellingborough might provide a better solution to meeting the shortfall of London places than the other options we are considering, which include the redevelopment of Feltham that was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 4 September.

Christopher Chope: The Government’s prison policy is quite radical, but does it extend to encouraging people in the private sector to
	design, build and operate prisons? If not, why not? Would not Wellingborough be an ideal site for that kind of project?

Jeremy Wright: I can reassure my hon. Friend that when making decisions on who should run new prisons, be they in Wrexham, London or anywhere else, we will consider private sector bids as well as public sector bids. We want to reach the best deal for the taxpayer in the provision of a quality service. I can at least assure him that there will be a competition, and I hope that we will consider all bids fairly.

Christopher Chope: But that covers the contracts for the running of prisons once they have been built. I have in mind companies from the private sector designing, building and operating prisons in a way that allows us to develop the best rehabilitation for offenders, which is very much at the forefront of the Government’s policy.

Jeremy Wright: It is our conclusion that it is best to separate the building and the running of a prison. That gives us more options when we consider the contracts for the running of the prison. I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that private sector bids will certainly be actively considered for the building of the prison, which is the first decision that we will take. We will then mount a separate competition for the running of the prison and I can again assure him that we will consider carefully all the bids that we receive.
	Let me return to the issue of Wellingborough as an alternative London prison. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough has said that large numbers of London prisoners find themselves in Wellingborough. Indeed, they also find themselves in Onley and in other prisons. That is due to the significant deficit of prison places in the London area for London prisoners. As he knows, I firmly believe that the best solution to the shortage of places in London is to build a new prison in London. That is why we are considering the development of the Feltham site.
	My hon. Friend is correct, however, to say that we need alternatives to the Feltham site, and we have other potential locations that fall within the designated site search area. Unfortunately for Wellingborough, that designated area does not stretch into Northamptonshire. It is my expectation that we will find a suitable location for a new London prison on one of these sites.
	My hon. Friend’s advocacy and passion, with which you are well familiar, Mr Speaker, command respect. He has asked me to look again specifically at the alternative sites that may be considered for a new London prison. He knows of my scepticism that Wellingborough could be the right candidate for that role, and I make absolutely no promises about the outcome of that further consideration, nor do I undertake to postpone the disposal of the site for as long as 12 months. However, in view of the fact that our conversation on this matter took place only this morning, I will take time to consider properly what he has said before making a final disposal of the Wellingborough site.
	As my hon. Friend knows, however, we cannot hold on to the site indefinitely. The level of security, utilities and maintenance has been reduced to one appropriate for a site that has been closed, but it does not come cheaply, none the less. We estimate that about £237,000
	will be spent in this financial year on holding costs alone. It is therefore in the taxpayer’s best interest to avoid unnecessary holding costs and to seek to dispose of the site expeditiously, in accordance with central Government guidelines governing the disposal of surplus property assets.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to the Minister for doing what I said he might consider doing right at the beginning, and the Secretary of State was right to say that when there are new facts, the situation will be looked at again—I very much appreciate it. I have one thing I wish to take up with the Minister. He rightly talks of a number of prison closures, but they have been undertaken under the new Secretary of State for very sound reasons. I believe that Wellingborough’s closure was done under the old Secretary of State, when we did not have the policy in place that we now have.

Jeremy Wright: I would say two things on that to my hon. Friend. First, he must always remember to complete his quotes. When the Secretary of State did endorse his generous assessment of me, he also said, equally generously, that I was prepared to follow through on difficult decisions where I believe them to be in the national interest— I hope he is right about that, too.
	The second point relates to the closure of Wellingborough prison and the comparison with other prisons. My hon. Friend knows my view, and I do not think we are ever likely to agree on this. Having looked again at that decision, I believe it was the right decision to close Wellingborough prison in the circumstances. We are now considering a different question: what to do with the site and what prospects it may have for future use. I repeat that he knows where my scepticism lies, but he asked me to consider the matter again, specifically whether Wellingborough might form a suitable site for another London prison. I said to him this morning, and I am happy to repeat it, that he may have some task persuading me that it is better to build a London prison in Northamptonshire than in London.

Peter Bone: rose—

Jeremy Wright: I have provoked my hon. Friend again, and I am happy to give way.

Peter Bone: This afternoon, I had the fun of looking up the travel times to Feltham and to Wellingborough, and I found that there was not a lot of difference.

Jeremy Wright: I am not sure what method of travel my hon. Friend was looking at. As I have explained to him, there are a number of factors to consider: the transfer time between the relevant prison site and the local courts it would serve; and the relevant travel time for those who may be visiting inmates at the prison. Given that the majority of prisoners we would be looking to accommodate will come from the London area, it, again, seems logical that where we can, we look at a site within the London area. I say again to my hon. Friend that given what he has said to me, I think it only right that I should take the opportunity to look at this matter again, and I will do so.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) will be pleased to hear of the Minister’s generous offer. I have a
	question on the policy for London prisoners. As the Minister knows, I have a vested interest, because my area contains two prisons that take prisoners from London. When I have visited these prisons, I have found that they have mainly been full of former gang members who have been taken out of London. Removing them from the north of London, where they come from, is seen as a benefit, because that makes it more difficult for them to maintain contact with the gang networks from which we have just extracted them. How far have we gone with this policy so far? What are the thoughts for the future? Surely we are going against our own vested interest here, which is to remove these people whence they came.

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend is right to an extent, and he knows that the two prisons in his constituency are probably no more than a stone’s throw from the edge of mine, and I know them well. He is right that there are a number of London prisoners who are in prisons outside London for good and sensible population management reasons. I can reassure him that it is highly likely that whatever provision we make for an additional London prison, there will remain some transferring of London prisoners to sites outside London. That will be necessary because of the figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough has given the House tonight. That does not mean that we should not consider the needs of the majority of London-based prisoners, which will be to remain in the London area, and the needs of their families who will wish to visit them, as much as the needs of those offenders themselves. It still seems to me that we will want to consider the building of additional prison capacity in or around the London area.

Philip Hollobone: rose—

Jeremy Wright: I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend before I come to a conclusion.

Philip Hollobone: I applaud the Minister for his open-mindedness with this new question that he now poses for himself, and stress the excellent connectivity of Wellingborough, both north to south—it is less than 50 minutes on the train to London—and east to west, with the excellent road network. Moreover, much to local people’s consternation, a campaign sponsored by the Department for Communities and Local Government a couple of years ago saw Northamptonshire marketed in London as “North Londonshire”, attracting people from London to Northamptonshire. In his efforts to answer this new question, I urge the Minister to ignore this regional boundary, which very few people recognise. Northamptonshire is the southern most part of the supposed east midlands, but it really does not feel like it.

Jeremy Wright: I sense that the next application from my hon. Friends will be an extension to the tube network to Wellingborough and Kettering. In any event, I feel it necessary to point out that it is still a hard sell to make the argument that it is a more effective location for a London prison to put it in Northamptonshire than to put it in London. None the less, as I have said, I will consider that case, and I will look carefully at what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough has said. He will recognise that I cannot undertake indefinitely to
	hold on to a prison site that we may not need and do so at a significant cost to the taxpayer. It follows that, as a first step to what may be the disposal of that site, officials in the Ministry of Justice have a meeting scheduled already with the local planning authority to begin discussions on the future of the site. That process is obviously at an early stage and no decisions on its future use have been made. It must surely be in the interests of my hon. Friend’s constituents and the taxpayer at large that we, in close consultation with the local
	planning authority, look at the possible future uses of the site, including its potential for development. We will continue with that process alongside looking again at the viable options for the new London prison. I trust that my hon. Friends will accept that that is a prudent way to proceed.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.